Subject: OSS emulation of full-duplex audio devices
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jared D. McNeill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2005 12:00:46
Hey folks --
Looking at some of the Linux OSS code, it seems that they default the
audio device to full-duplex mode if the device was opened read/write. We
currently don't do this (it's commented out in sys/dev/audio.c):
sc->sc_full_duplex = 0;
/* doesn't always work right on SB.
(flags & (FWRITE|FREAD)) == (FWRITE|FREAD) &&
(hw->get_props(sc->hw_hdl) & AUDIO_PROP_FULLDUPLEX);
It's strange; OSS has a 'set full duplex' ioctl, which needs to be
implemented by the low-level hardware driver.. yet, it appears to be
unsupported by many of the drivers which claim to support full-duplex
operation. Anyway, it looks as if the ioctl isn't required, since they
set the device to full-duplex if the card supports it and if the device
is opened read/write.
Skype is one such application that doesn't bother calling the (seeming
unsupported) 'set full duplex' ioctl; instead, it opens /dev/dsp
read/write and assumes that OSS is going to put the device in
full-duplex mode for it (see misc/30044). We fail to properly emulate
the OSS behaviour here.
FYI: CVS says that this behaviour was changed in revision 1.68 of
audio.c, over 7 1/2 years ago: "Make sure audio device starts in
half-duplex mode and document the fact."
Anyway, my test was to launch skype, and call my cell phone. After
answering, I checked audioctl and it confirmed that the device was still
in half-duplex mode. I spoke on my cell phone, and could hear myself on
the PC, but when I spoke into the PC I couldn't hear myself on the
phone. As soon as I set full-duplex mode with audioctl, everything
So what I'm proposing is to change this silly default in the NetBSD
audio subsystem to match the OSS behaviour. It seems strange to default
a device to half-duplex mode if full-duplex is supported and the device
was opened read/write. Surely if the caller was opening the audio device
read/write, they were doing so for a reason.
Any objections to this change?