[pulseaudio-discuss] Edinburgh Murphy meeting notes

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 21:55 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 17:50 +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > 
> > I made a few notes about this meeting. Feel free to add CC's as you see
> > appropriate. Also please feel free to correct my version of events just
> > in case I've put something down incorrectly.
> 
> Awesome, thanks for the notes! Any objections to sending this to the
> pulseaudio-discuss and murphy-dev lists too?
> 
> > Tanu, Janos, Jaska: Could you please make the two presentations you had
> > available somewhere for reference?
> 
> My slides can be found at
> http://files.tanuk.dy.fi/tmp/node_based_routing_in_pulseaudio.pdf

(snip, Murphy discussion sent separately to murphy-dev)

> > Tanu's Slides:
> > 
> > Routing Groups are currently (under Tanu's plans a core concept, but
> > myself and Arun suggested that these may be private to the routing
> > implementation as these may not be useful to other potential
> > implementations of routing algorithms - e.g. it seems to be slight
> > leakage of a specific requirement.
> > 
> > The question of Zones vs. Roles was raised. I'm not super clear on how
> > these are merged into the single Routing Group concept.
> 
> My understanding is that if the router implementation cares about zones,
> it will have separate routing groups for each zone (e.g. separate "music
> output" group for each zone).
> 
> > So problems Pierre had with some of the Node representations were that
> > some things are simply not exposed from the DSP. Also some
> > configurations require arbitrary setup before nodes are implicitly
> > connected in the DSP. These should still be logically represented in the
> > PA routing. This might require setting kcontrols or it may require
> > running an arbitrary program (e.g. to load specific firmware for that
> > route). Arun suggested that this may be something that should go into UCM.
> > 
> > There are still some issues related to DSP exposure. An internal Intel
> > meeting with Pierre will likely happen to discuss this further.
> > 
> > Generally, there was some degree of concern over the number of new core
> > concepts needed to support this and some questions were asked about
> > whether some parts are really internal to the routing algorithm
> > *implementation* itself, rather than the concept of routing algorithms
> > as generally supported in PA. We all agree we need a better routing
> > infrastructure, so the only question is really how many of the concepts
> > are leaks from the current Murphy-based implementation vs. genuinely
> > useful in the general case.
> 
> I got the criticism about routing groups - if there are other concepts
> that you find questionable, please let me know.