Hi David, On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM, David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com> wrote: > On 11/27/2012 02:35 PM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: >> >> Hi Mikel, >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Mikel Astiz <mikel.astiz.oss at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Luiz, >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz >>> <luiz.dentz at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mikel, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Mikel Astiz <mikel.astiz.oss at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Mikel Astiz <mikel.astiz at bmw-carit.de> >>>>> >>>>> This patchset extends the previous patch (resent unmodified here) with >>>>> the policy change suggested by Tanu. >>>>> >>>>> It seems no conclusion was reached about the names etc. but I believe >>>>> this is the best alternative without the form factor and in any case the >>>>> strings can easily be changed during/after pushing. >>>>> >>>>> Mikel Astiz (3): >>>>> bluetooth: Merge headset ports into one >>>>> bluetooth: Disable profile auto-switch policy for headsets >>>>> conf: Load bluetooth-policy module by default >>>>> >>>>> src/daemon/default.pa.in | 4 ++ >>>>> src/modules/bluetooth/module-bluetooth-device.c | 72 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++------- >>>>> src/modules/bluetooth/module-bluetooth-policy.c | 4 ++ >>>>> 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.7.11.7 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to see some good reasoning to do these changes, how we >>> >>> >>> There was a long IRC discussion about this and the conclusion was that >>> introducing independent ports for A2DP and HSP/HFP headsets was a >>> regression (as first pointed out in [1]). There was no general >>> consensus but this seems the most strict interpretation of a port, >>> which represents a physical device no matter the underlying protocols. >> >> >> Im not sure I follow, my interpretation was that the ports were per >> sinks/sources just as the sinks and sources are per profiles > > > This is no longer true - e g, on the ALSA side we have (since 1.0 or 2.0, > don't remember) shared ports for different profiles, e g, the "Analog > Output" port can be used with both a "Stereo" and a "5.1 Surround" profile. Still don't see the problem, why we cannot have multiple output ports per card? Or this is because they show up/are selectable in the Output tab, because that I would assume is a bug and only ports which belongs to the active profile should be listed there. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
