Jaroslav Kysela

> So introducing another variable makes it work, something like: Yes. Thanks. Fixed in https://github.com/alsa-project/alsa-ucm-conf/commit/1b69ade9b6d7ee37a87c08b12d7955d0b68fa69d (applied to master branch now)

The forced separation of PCM devices is not resolved. I would like really to see the combined UCM profiles (although it may be more complicated doing this in UCM instead...

ALSA reports channel positions using API - to check - use `amixer -c 0 controls` - look for `chmap-variable` lines. If the mapping is correct for your kernel, you should...

Could we just work with whole configuration blocks? This feature may be useful for all config parts. Like: ``` SubtreeCopy.AnUniqueId { type override source "Class.Pipeline.mixout-gain-eqiir-eqfir-dai-copier-playback" target "Class.Pipeline.mixout-efx-dai-copier-playback" tree { Object.Widget...

> @perexg since we'd like to keep the new sub class definitions in separate conf files, the uniqueid might be problematic. But maybe if I make it an array like...

> Not sure I follow what the uniqueID is, it looks redundant with the target in the suggested example? > > ``` > SubtreeCopy.Pipeline-mixout-efx-dai-copier-playback { > type override > source...

Ok, I would remove all class.pipeline specific code. It is not required IMHO. See: ``` Class.Pipeline.mixout-efx-dai-copier-playback { Object.Base { !route [ ... ] } } SubtreeCopy.add-to-mixout-efx { type override source...

BTW: I like your nested examples. They show the power for the subtree copying.

The `tree` field removal means data mixup (what if "source" id is a valid id in the copied sub-tree for example?). My proposal was to have SubTreeCopy configuration separated.

> > The `tree` field removal means data mixup (what if "source" id is a valid id in the copied sub-tree for example?). My proposal was to have SubTreeCopy configuration...