On Sat, 2020-02-22 at 08:53 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 18:38 +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > Dne 16. 02. 20 v 11:06 Tanu Kaskinen napsal(a): > > > On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 11:42 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > + pulseaudio-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 17:25 +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > > > Actually, I am also trying to resolve the description of the speaker > > > > > configuration. It may not be only enough to give the PCM device, because we > > > > > don't know, if user connected the stereo or surround speakers to the sound > > > > > card output for example. I play with an idea to add device variants to UCM, > > > > > but the question is, how we can map this to pulseaudio profile/port schematics. > > > > > > > > > > My quick idea is to export those variants via the verbs, so the exported verb > > > > > names might look like: > > > > > > > > > > HiFi:Speaker-Stereo > > > > > HiFi:Speaker-5.1 > > > > > > > > > > Where 'HiFi' is the verb name, 'Speaker' is the device name and 'Stereo' is > > > > > the variant name. > > > > > > > > > > If we need to define multiple variants, all may be exported like: > > > > > > > > > > HiFi:Speaker-5.1,Mic-4.0 > > > > > > > > > > Also, we can enhance this and store the configuration to a file, thus 'HiFi' > > > > > can refer to 'HiFi@Speaker-5.1,Mic-4.0' by default. > > > > > > > > Verb + list-of-device-variants sounds like a good way to map UCM > > > > devices to pulseaudio profiles (and if there's just one verb, which I > > > > expect to be the common case, don't show it in the profile name). I > > > > don't know how the variants should be configured in UCM, but I know > > > > that device variants should be able to declare conflicts with other > > > > devices (or device variants). For example, 5.1 speaker output may make > > > > recording impossible, while stereo speaker output can be used toghether > > > > with a mic. If this information is not provided by UCM, pulseaudio will > > > > have to probe all variant combinations (like it currently does with the > > > > legacy mixer system). > > > > > > Sorry, now I realized that the Verb + list-of-device-variants scheme > > > doesn't really work after all as the profile scheme. Or maybe it does, > > > but it's significantly different from what we do currently. Switching > > > between Headphones and Speaker-Stereo often doesn't require reopening > > > the PCM device, so there's no need for separate Headphones and Speaker- > > > Stereo profiles. I guess we could still create separate profiles, it > > > just means that the profile list will get much longer. > > > > > > We could add a separate optimization step to the profile creation > > > process. That is, first create all possible device-variant combinations > > > as the initial profile list, and then inspect which profiles can be > > > merged. Naming the merged profiles becomes a problem, but I imagine > > > it's solvable with static rules (e.g. merging Speakers-Stereo and > > > Headphones becomes Analog-Stereo), and if necessary the merging can be > > > improved gradually over time. > > > > > > > From profile creation perspective the ideal scheme would be not based > > > on UCM devices but on PCM devices and their configuration variants, but > > > I imagine naming would be an even bigger problem with this scheme (how > > > to map PCM device names to sensible user friendly names?). > > > > I think that I didn't explain my idea in detail. The variant verbs may be > > almost identical (thus all devices will be defined) like the "master" one. But > > the specific variant configuration will be returned to the application. So it > > will differ only in the channel count value for the Speaker device or so. The > > PCM device name + PCM parameters check will be fine. I don't think that we > > should modify something on the PA side. PA activates only one verb per > > soundcard now. > > Oh, you want to create variant verbs? Is the idea that all possible > device combinations will be made separate verbs? That would make life > easier for PulseAudio, but wouldn't it mean a lot more work for UCM > configuration writers? Rather than generating the device combinations > automatically in PulseAudio, the combinations would have to be manually > listed in every UCM configuration. > > I think it would be better to define only one verb per sound card and > declare the conflicts between the devices or device variants, and let > PulseAudio automatically generate the device combinations as profiles. > > I may be misunderstanding something, I didn't for example understand > what you meant by "the PCM device name + PCM parameters check will be > fine". Some examples could be useful. Let's say that there's a sound > card that has stereo output (either headphones or line-out), 4.0 > output, 5.1 output, SPDIF output and stereo input. If input is used, > 5.1 output can't be used at the same time. Would UCM define the > following verbs?: > > HiFi:Headphones,SPDIF,Mic > HiFi:Line-Stereo,SPDIF,Mic > HiFi:Line-4.0,SPDIF,Mic > HiFi:Line-5.1,SPDIF I'm currently writing UCM configuration for Audigy2, because PulseAudio's default configuration doesn't work with that card properly. I'm creating verbs for each possible device combination, and I ran into a naming issue. How should "bidirectional" devices be listed in the verb name? If there's both line-out and line-in and SPDIF supports both input and output, maybe the verb name could be for example this: HiFi:Line-4.0-Out,SPDIF-Out,Line-Stereo-In,SPDIF-In The device name in SectionDevice would be just "Line" or "SPDIF". I don't really like bidirectional devices, i.e. I'd prefer have separate SectionDevice names for Line-In and Line-Out, but I guess merging them into one device can work. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk https://liberapay.com/tanuk
