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

[David Henningsson]

On 2011-07-03 15:00, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> '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
> altogether.
>
> Col
>

Ok, here's a patch properly formatted for inclusion.


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