On 07/04/2011 10:19 AM, David Henningsson wrote: > 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. After having seen yet another with the same problem, I have now included this patch in Ubuntu. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic
