[pulseaudio-discuss] [RFC] Exposing ports and profiles to clients
tanuk at iki.fi
Mon Oct 24 11:19:54 PDT 2011
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 16:46 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
> Two different proposals (very drafty) on how to expose ports for
> inactive profiles, dunno which one is better. The first one adds a
> cross-reference struct which will repeat itself for every combination of
> port and profile. The second one adds a profile list for every port. The
> second one looks less ugly, but would bloat the network a little more as
> that would make pa_sink_port_info include the profile list as well.
The first option feels somehow very unintuitive to me. I like the second
> Both proposals add port lists to the card. The internal structure for
> this is coming soon to a patch near you.
> Both patches can also be combined with a patch that would merge
> pa_source_port_info and pa_sink_port_info into a single struct (for
> Note: as some of you might remember, I tried adding a "ports" field to
> the pa_card_profile struct, but that broke the ABI as pa_card has a list
> that's depending on the size of pa_card_profile.
If adding a "ports" field to the pa_card_profile struct feels like it
would obviously be the best option, how would you feel about creating a
parallel version of the pa_card_profile struct with the design flaw
fixed? I mean pa_card_profile2. pa_card_profile would get deprecated,
but in order to keep backwards compatibility it would have to be kept
around. Any new features would get added to pa_card_profile2.
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss