8 Nov
2006
8 Nov
'06
8:10 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 07:33:53PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 01:24 +0100, David Causse
wrote:
I don't know what OS you talk about but if I take windows as example,
name is not the only parameter to identify devices, if I plug my usb key
in an another port I use to, windows consider it as a new device. And
device name will be something like "Storage Key (2)" but it is the same
device. So 2 names for one device, doesn't work to fixate an app config.
I don't have very good knowledge especially how usb-audio works but when
I look at /proc/asound/cards I see a table and columns, and if I have to
select one and only one the "much cleaner" way to do so is to identify
what column is unique and I consider that index is the right parameter
to restrict for. Maybe it is not practical especially for usb but usb
ease of use (plug/unplug do what ever you want) is maybe not compatible
with someone who want to fixate its app config. User should restrict
himself in the way he uses his usb devices.
You have better knowledge of this so I don't want to contradict but I
can't understand why you consider that name is a good way to identify
device. I have a rdms point of view so it's why when I heard something
like you have to select something by it's label or even part of its
label it sounds very ugly in my ears :).
David.
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:39:50PM +0100, Atte
André Jensen wrote:
How could this possibly be cleaner or simpler than addressing devices by
name like every other OS does? Paul Davis wrote:
IMHO card number should be static and setup by system conf (index=xx
module option), that sounds much cleaner to me. Maybe users should use names, but apps
shouldn't be doing this. They
would become totally non-portable.
Well, I just rolled 2.6.18-rt7 (was on 2.6.15) and the device numbers
are completely reshuffled. I would imagine any setup that relies on the
device numbers (and not names) would be totally messed up in situations
such as these.