I have hardware secondary buffers almost working with OSS and soundcards that supports multi opens. I haven't had the time to finish it lately but I would like to see how you handled some of the dsound.dll issues.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm trying to improve winealsa's sound quality, and I have found a way. And > > I think I should make some checks in configure which I am totally unaware > > of. If everything go smooth, the patch will be sent out within several days. > > A few weeks back, I got fed up with the winealsa driver not working with my app > (and the OSS driver wasn't working for me at the time either), so I gutted it > and rolled my own using the DMIX plugin. PCM output is about 80% complete ATM. > All that's left to do there is one-shot buffers, hook up volume/panning control, > and do some tidying up of the code. And then there's the input side.... > > I was planning to submit it as a separate driver, since its architecture differs > significantly from the existing one. The main differences are: support for > "hardware" secondary buffers with ALSA, not Wine, doing the mixing; and the use > of the DMIX plugin, which hopefully will allow it to play friendly with other > DMIX-aware linux apps (e.g. mplayer, etc.). > > So, what I'm wondering now is: 1) Should I bother finishing it? OSS is > working fine for me again, and if someone else is going to fix the existing ALSA > driver...., and 2) if the answer to question 1 is 'yes', then what is the proper > protocol for submitting such a substantial code change. IMO a separate driver > would be less destabilizing (don't run it if you don't want to!), but a little > confusing (two ALSA drivers?).
