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. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic
