[pulseaudio-discuss] New feature in the works: "volume sharing"
tanu.kaskinen at digia.com
Mon Feb 14 03:19:56 PST 2011
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 22:05 +0200, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> With this push based approach, you do loose some individual granularity,
> but the net volume of the underlying h/w should be the same as your
What granularity would I lose? I think your suggested logic would be
quite equivalent to the one that I originally proposed.
> The concern I have with the approach outlined, is that it adds
> complexity to the core and I'm not 100% sure how far the chain can go
> (e.g. can you have a filter-sink1->filter-sink2->filter-sink3->hw-sink
> pipeline? - with a push model this is possible).
It's possible with the pull model too - the filter sinks are always
traversed recursively. About complexity - I haven't done a thorough
analysis of your suggestion, but I would guess that it would be a little
bit simpler. There would still be a significant amount of added
complexity in the core, though. I'll finish the patch using the original
logic first, and if you want, I can probably do another version to see
how much the push model will differ.
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss