On 2011-11-01 18:54, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 19:46 +0200, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> Ah, sorry, I misread your suggestion earlier. I'm not sure this is the >> right approach. The intended role really is a property of the sink, not >> the profile. The main problem being that we can't see sinks that will be >> created by a profile. >> >> I think this came up before, possibly in some jack detection discussion, >> but perhaps there is room to create some sort of dormant sink(s) >> attached to a profile that is not usable for routing but can be looked >> at for such purposes. > > I think the intended role is actually a property of the port, not the > sink. And I think David's patches that are waiting for someone to review > them (I'll try to do it this week) already change ports so that they are > available as long as the card exists... Thanks. I would really like to see it being approved/merged soon (together with an ack on the third proposal for exposing all the card's ports) as I'm somewhat blocking on that to get the UI work started. For the profile switch stuff in general, I wonder how much of these discussions are really relevant now - once the priority list infrastructure is in place (and as I understand it Colin is keen to get started when he finds some time to do it), we might have more opportunities to work with these things. -- David Henningsson http://launchpad.net/~diwic
