On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 15:58 +0200, Christian Iversen wrote: > On 2013-05-21 15:36, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 16:06 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 14:58 +0200, Christian Iversen wrote: > >>> So my question to this list: Is module-suspend-on-idle really a > >>> requirement? How difficult would this be to fix? > >> > >> Already fixed in the "next" branch :) > > > > And jfyi, since you expressed interest in fixing it, the commit is: > > > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pulseaudio/pulseaudio/commit/?h=next&id=cb1ef3c211a90e4ead4738c1059054d6e44d50d9 > > Ah, good to hear! > > It was interesting reading the patch. I think I understand the problem > now. Without the suspend-on-idle module, there's no hook that fires > pa_sink_suspend(s, FALSE, ...) after the rate update, because the module > is not listening. > > Whereas in this patch, a new cause flag is implemented and used, so A) > the module will not react to it, and B) it is taken care of outside of > the suspend-on-idle module. > > Is that basically correct? Yes. -- Tanu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
