[pulseaudio-discuss] avoid-resampling -> avoid-processing

Arun Raghavan arun at arunraghavan.net
Fri Sep 21 13:17:02 UTC 2018

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, at 4:33 PM, Sangchul Lee wrote:
> > I'm thinking that we should change the avoid resampling flag on sinks to instead be avoid processing -- the idea being that we try not just to reconfigure to a given sample rate, but for the entire sample spec (and eventually channel map as well, once the reconfiguration patches are updated to address Tanu's comments).
> >
> > The rationale is that I'd like to avoid having one more aspect of configuration, and the use-case to avoid resampling almost certainly applies to at least bit depth (16 <-> 24, usually) at least, and at that point, why not everything.
> >
> > We could provide more fine-grained control (avoid-resampling/-remapping/-conversion/-channel-mix), but I don't see the benefit of this, so I figure a more overarching option is more likely to be useful.
> I agree with that. Although the pending patches(sorry to tanu, I'll
> update soon that with applying your last comments :)) address
> bit-depth within enabling 'avoid-resampling' option, I also think
> changing the name to any other one is better than now.
> (avoid-processing, avoid-resampler, or another one).

One question -- in avoid-resampling mode, we have a lower bound on the sample rate (as the lowest of default and alternate sample rate). Should we do the same thing for channels, or let the channel count be as low as 1 if the media is so configured?

I have a mild leaning towards the latter as a sanity check.


More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list