Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:28:43 +0100 (MET) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: jonny@coppe.ufrj.br (Joao Carlos Mendes Luis) Cc: multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: audio modules for various applications Message-ID: <199711041028.LAA20006@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <199711031914.RAA07431@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br> from "Joao Carlos Mendes Luis" at Nov 3, 97 05:13:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> #define quoting(Luigi Rizzo) > // with both Amancio's and my driver now being in the source tree, I > // think this is a good time to revise the audio modules used by > // various applications. ... > // Basically my idea is to use the OSS API as much as possible, and > > I was waiting for a long time for somebody to raise this problem. > In fact, I've always wondered why should we follow the linux OSS > API other than the SUN audio API. Most programs I intend to use > with FreeBSD also work with Sun/SunOS/Solaris. I think this is > also the most used API, in Unix terms. I am not familiar about the Sun audio API to say how good or bad it is. >From what I see in audio_sun.cc in the vat sources, but I don't particularly like the idea of having a large data structure with a lot of spare fields which must be carefully initialized before passing them to the ioctl() calls... plus i am a bit uncertain on the presence and semantics of ioctl() which support synchronization with the audio device... plus I am not sure if it supports the concept of an input mixer... The OSS/Voxware interface does _some_ things in a nice way, and some in a way that I really don't like. But the reason to use OSS instead of SUN is that there is a commercial version of the driver, and far too many linux apps which use that one. We simply have no choice (from a "marketing" point of view). I am looking at the definition of a new API for audio device, aimed at minimizing the number of calls, and giving more support to synchronization. But this will not be SUN either... > // Since many programs already work unchanged with the OSS API and my > // driver, I would like to focus on vat, nas, timidity and speak_freely > // which are the ones for which I have a replacement driver. Of > > All of them compile out-of-the-box in Sun systems, right ? even for "vat" there is an oss port. But OSS does not support full duplex on the SB16 whereas my driver does. In fact the SUN API seems to be able to express this, but we cannot really hope to support a thousand different interfaces in the driver... Cheers Luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711041028.LAA20006>