You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@mwasko oh I admit it is quite stupid example of a routing matrix... there's only 2 input/output channels (the red arrows), so essentially everything in the 8x8 matrix that falls out of the 2x2 upper left square is useless i.e. doesn't have any effect. Anyway I think nothing should stop you using this kind of matrix with 2 channel use case and actually you have to define 8x8 in topology even not using all 8 channels.
But yeah, maybe just zero out everything out of 2x2 would make it clear?
Activity
juimonen commentedon Jun 4, 2020
@mwasko you mean because implementation has changed? I can also try to fix this if needed as I did the original...
mwasko commentedon Jun 4, 2020
@juimonen the current MUX & DEMUX configuration matrix does not seem to make any sense, please take a look at it and let me know.
In MUX configuration example both Input Stream 1 and Stream 2 has channels 1,3,5,7 copied to all 8 output channels. It does not match the description.
juimonen commentedon Jun 4, 2020
@mwasko oh I admit it is quite stupid example of a routing matrix... there's only 2 input/output channels (the red arrows), so essentially everything in the 8x8 matrix that falls out of the 2x2 upper left square is useless i.e. doesn't have any effect. Anyway I think nothing should stop you using this kind of matrix with 2 channel use case and actually you have to define 8x8 in topology even not using all 8 channels.
But yeah, maybe just zero out everything out of 2x2 would make it clear?
lgirdwood commentedon Jun 9, 2020
@juimonen @bkokoszx lets roll all our demux/mux fixes up for v1.6. I think we are going in the right direction now.