Hi Tanu, On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 17:53 +0200, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: >> Hi Colin, Tanu, >> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Colin Guthrie <gmane at colin.guthr.ie> wrote: >> > 'Twas brillig, and Tanu Kaskinen at 16/11/13 08:51 did gyre and gimble: >> >> On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 09:31 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote: >> >> I haven't concentrated on the patches enough to even know what >> >> problem you're solving - is it just that the assertion makes you >> >> nervous, or is there some other benefit. >> > >> > I'm not solving any specific problem per-se. I'm just looking at several >> > bugs where incorrect profiles appear to be selected by default on first >> > boot where HDMI is picked over regular analog output (for those alsa >> > cards which share a single card for both HDMI and Analog output rather >> > than having it presented as separate cards) despite HDMI having a lower >> > priority. This lead me to look at this code and got me thinking - this >> > is the only reason for the patch. >> > >> > A further complication to my current bugs is that sometimes Headphone >> > *ports* are picked by default on first boot even when they are >> > unavailable and again are not the highest priority port. It seems like >> > the same problem but in a different, but similar, part of the code. This >> > is why the second set of patches applied the same logical fixes to the >> > Sink/Source code that Luiz added to the Card profiles. I think it makes >> > sense to keep these bits of code approximately in sync regardless of the >> > outcome of this discussion - the same logic should apply. >> >> I can try and apply the same logic to Sink/Source, it just that >> overall this kind of policy should be in one place or then remove it >> altogether and make sure the list is always ordered by their module so >> the core should just pick the first one, the problem we were trying to >> solve was that there is no hook for priority changes thus they are >> considered static which is probably why we are relying on >> pa_card_set_profile_available + >> PA_CORE_HOOK_CARD_PROFILE_AVAILABLE_CHANGED to indicate the profiles >> changes. >> >> So perhaps we should came to an agreement where and how we should be >> doing this sort of policy, we could perhaps generalize >> module-bluetooth-policy, or do we want to continue with per technology >> policy? > > I don't think the policy in module-bluetooth-policy is useful outside > Bluetooth. module-bluetooth-policy is mainly concerned with the > transport state in its policy, and the profile availability is only used > as a proxy for the transport state. I'd be happy if > module-bluetooth-policy would be changed so that instead of using the > profile states, it would directly track the transport states using the > APIs that pa_bluez_discovery provides. But since using the profile > states as a proxy works fine too, I'm not really asking anyone to do > anything about that. > > From the proposed changes, I think Colin's patches 1 and 3 make sense. > Preferring PA_AVAILABLE_YES over PA_AVAILABLE_UNKNOWN in generic code > isn't a good idea. Im having a hard time to understand why any policy would prefer a profile that is less likely to work than another, but perhaps we are not willing the mess with other parts of the code that were using this information in a different way. But then why we are bothering selecting any profile on pa_card_new? This is a policy decision and it seems we are not able to do a generic one so it should not even try, pick the first and be done with it. Anyway if pa_card_new do not select 'off' by default it pretty much breaks Bluetooth qualification and if I change the priority of 'off' profile to force it to be selected it breaks module-bluetooth-policy. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
