On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 10:43 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > On 02/04/2013 09:59 AM, Mikel Astiz wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > >> Yes, I've held the opinion for quite some time now that sinks/sources > >> should be merged with ports. It's a big change and doesn't bring any new > >> features in itself, so I don't consider it as a high-priority thing, but > >> patches are welcome. > > > > Is there any ongoing effort to move this forward? Is there a consensus > > about the 1:1 mapping between ports and sink/sources? > > No, and no. > > > We decided Immediately before 3.0 that some Bluetooth ports should be > > merged (commit 40329acc1a28145643e49207e9d65cd05bbda2c8) but this is > > basically UI-oriented and not very convenient for internal use, as > > already discussed. > > > > In this case, I was tracking down a issue we have in > > module-bluetooth-device, and the solution would be much simpler if we > > had independent ports. > > So; if port are merged with sinks/sources, I assume you would like this > merged object to be once per stream (i e different for a2dp and > hfp/hsp), which would again break the UI? > > This looks like a problem with the approach of trying to merge ports and > sinks/sources. I don't think merging ports with sinks/sources is the most relevant question here. The question is how to simultaneously present a Bluetooth headset as a single routing endpoint to the user and have means to sufficiently distinguish between A2DP and HSP inside PulseAudio. I have proposed that we use the routing nodes of the policy work done by Janos and Jaska to represent the headset as a single routing endpoint, and associate multiple ports (A2DP and HSP) with that routing endpoint. I would like to reach a consensus about this proposal. Is it ok for everybody? David? Janos? Jaska? Please comment. -- Tanu
