On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 16:46 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > Two different proposals (very drafty) on how to expose ports for > inactive profiles, dunno which one is better. The first one adds a > cross-reference struct which will repeat itself for every combination of > port and profile. The second one adds a profile list for every port. The > second one looks less ugly, but would bloat the network a little more as > that would make pa_sink_port_info include the profile list as well. The first option feels somehow very unintuitive to me. I like the second option better. > Both proposals add port lists to the card. The internal structure for > this is coming soon to a patch near you. > > Both patches can also be combined with a patch that would merge > pa_source_port_info and pa_sink_port_info into a single struct (for > simplicity). > > Note: as some of you might remember, I tried adding a "ports" field to > the pa_card_profile struct, but that broke the ABI as pa_card has a list > that's depending on the size of pa_card_profile. If adding a "ports" field to the pa_card_profile struct feels like it would obviously be the best option, how would you feel about creating a parallel version of the pa_card_profile struct with the design flaw fixed? I mean pa_card_profile2. pa_card_profile would get deprecated, but in order to keep backwards compatibility it would have to be kept around. Any new features would get added to pa_card_profile2. -- Tanu
