[pulseaudio-discuss] [RFC] Should we set Front=0dB for the headphone path?
david.henningsson at canonical.com
Wed Aug 31 02:05:56 PDT 2011
On 07/04/2011 10:19 AM, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 2011-07-03 15:00, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> 'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 01/07/11 14:03 did gyre and
>>> I wonder if we're better off with the attached patch. I've seen more
>>> than one system where the volume control named "Front" is a part of
>>> audio path for headphones. The attached patch would be somewhat of a
>>> compromise: While we don't merge it into the path, as that would be
>>> regressing machines where "Front" isn't a part of the audio path, it
>>> would still enable sound on these machines. The question is if "Front"
>>> is turning on some output it shouldn't on some machines, but I think it
>>> wouldn't: this should (for all common systems I can think of) be fixed
>>> through the driver's auto-mute anyway.
>> Seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but does anyone else have any
>> opinions on this? Or perhaps any cases where regressions could be caused?
>> (see my latest comment on the path_set_condense() method which checks
>> volume use for OFF which could actually get in the way here!!)
>>> The other option would be to quirk every single machine that has this
>>> problem to a separate udev rule -> profile-set -> path .conf file.
>>> What do you think?
>> Yeah I really don't like that option. If we do need some quirks here I'd
>> much rather see them implemented in a more fine grained way than with
>> udev rules... as it's a bit of blunt object. But ideally avoid it
> Ok, here's a patch properly formatted for inclusion.
After having seen yet another with the same problem, I have now included
this patch in Ubuntu.
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss