[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] sink, source: Add a flag to inhibit suspend

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:19 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 10:30 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 12:44 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Some policy module asked the sink to suspend with the IDLE cause, and
> > > > that operation was not allowed, so I think it makes sense to tell the
> > > > policy module that its request was denied.
> > > 
> > > I guess we can signal an error. From the core's perspective, we're not
> > > really going to see anything dealing with the error meaningfully (other
> > > than a debug print).
> > > 
> > > > > As for chained suspend causes, the intention of this patch was to only
> > > > > ignore idle suspend. If something else wants to force a suspend, I think
> > > > > it should be honoured. That is, the check should be filter out the IDLE
> > > > > cause if cause is IDLE+<something else>.
> > > > 
> > > > I think we shouldn't prepare for IDLE+<something else>, because we don't
> > > > need to and it would bring some complications as I explained in the
> > > > previous mail.
> > > 
> > > Is the complication the decision about what to do when there are two
> > > causes? I think it makes sense to mask out IDLE if it's there and
> > > continue in this case but maybe you're thinking of some case that I'm
> > > not.
> > 
> > I think it would be odd to fail if the cause is IDLE, but silently
> > ignore the IDLE part if it's IDLE+FOO. I'm not saying that completely
> > failing IDLE+FOO would be any better alternative - both alternatives
> > seem bad to me, so I'd like to avoid choosing by forbidding multi-cause
> > suspending altogether.
> 
> The choice is messy only because we're looking at this differently - I'm
> looking at IDLE cause as something the core can ignore whereas you'd
> like it to either be honoured or register a failure.
> 
> With my approach, we have a meaningful way to say that ...
> 
>   pa_sink_suspend(sink, true, PA_SUSPEND_IDLE | PA_SUSPEND_USER);
> 
> ... is the same as ...
> 
>   pa_sink_suspend(sink, true, PA_SUSPEND_IDLE);
>   pa_sink_suspend(sink, true, PA_SUSPEND_USER);
> 
> Nevertheless, if you're not convinced, I'm fine with commenting the
> quirkiness w.r.t. chaining IDLE with other causes in this case and
> leaving the behaviour as is in the patch.

Ok, please keep the behavior as it was in the patch.

-- 
Tanu