[pulseaudio-discuss] [RFC] Should we set Front=0dB for the headphone path?

Colin Guthrie gmane at colin.guthr.ie
Sun Jul 3 06:00:18 PDT 2011

'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 01/07/11 14:03 did gyre and gimble:
> 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



Colin Guthrie

Day Job:
  Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/]
Open Source:
  Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/]
  PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/]
  Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list