OK, version 2.2 is a good idea since a lot of new features and support has been provided this year.Hi Phil Have you had any further thoughts regarding the future work needed on the matrix mixer we discussed a few weeks ago? I ask because I am wondering about the potential timing of a FFADO version 2.2. It would be ideal if a few of the loose edges at least were tidied up for that, but obviously the feasibility of this depends on how much time you have over the next little while. I am conscious of the fact that the fixes we were discussing will involve a fair amount of work.
Yes, I understood that you need something which more generally could be called a "matrix controls" widget, with maximal degrees of flexibility for the developer. Ideally, "matrix mixer" itself would be a call to this "matrix controls" with just its own specific settings. However, this will require much works and tests, so, as I said previously, I will probably postpone them for version 2.3.To reiterate, I think the matrix mixer at the lowest level needs to retain the notion of rows and columns so it can be used for more than just input-output matrices. A derived widget class could contain the per-output functionality, and could impose a particular convention for whether rows or columns represented inputs - so long as the widget gained the ability to flick the matrix view around between columns-as-input and rows-as-input modes, which I understand was your intention . This would enable the code simplifications that you spoke about while retaining the generic nature in the underlying structure.
Please let me know what you think at your convenience. Regards jonathan
Philippe Carriere <email@example.com>