[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 6/6] Alsa: add card ports and path probe cache

[David Henningsson]

On 11/14/2011 09:37 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:42 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
>> On 11/10/2011 09:34 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>> I got a bit confused about the path naming, or more specifically about
>>> the uniqueness of the path names. I didn't have time to double check,
>>> but it seemed like in the old system there was no reason to have the
>>> path_set_make_paths_unique() function at all, because it looked like the
>>> path names would be unique anyway (within one path set). I'm pretty sure
>>> that I've missed something...
>>
>> Two different path files can have the same name, as "name" refers to the
>> "Name" key in the "General" section, not the file name. Does that clear
>> things up?
>
> Yes, thank you. Having the "name" option in General seems pointless to
> me... Complexity without gain. If the "name" option wouldn't exist,
> there would be 1:1 mapping between the path names appearing in PA logs
> and the configuration file names, which would be quite nice. Also, there
> wouldn't be need to care about making the path names unique after
> probing (port descriptions would probably still have to be checked that
> they are unique). For those reasons I'd like to remove the "name"
> option. Do you have anything against that?

Hmm, I don't really see the point in having this "name" key either. I 
wonder if I'm missing something.

>>> The path set should be created already at configuration parsing time.
>>> There shouldn't be need to create anything at probe time - I think the
>>> purpose of probing is just to remove those paths that are not available.
>>
>> It is a slight optimisation to create it here, this way we only create
>> path sets for profiles that are supported.
>
> Ok. I'd still like to keep the clear phases of configuration parsing
> (structure creation) and probing (removing unavailable stuff). So what
> do you think? Your comment didn't really tell me whether you agree or
> not.

Well, for me I haven't really seen it as if it were two specific phases 
like that. So I haven't tried not to mix them.
I'd personally prefer whatever is fastest (we all strive to get a faster 
boot!). However I haven't made any specific charts, so I can't tell for 
sure that it is significant.

What would the advantage of having "clear phases" be (except possibly a 
fuzzy feeling)?

-- 
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
http://launchpad.net/~diwic