On 17 February 2014 16:16, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 16:06 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> (Resend including list as well) >> On 17 Feb 2014 09:30, "Arun Raghavan" <arun at accosted.net> wrote: >> >> > On 16 February 2014 16:33, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> >> > wrote: >> > [...] >> > > Yes, I can and I will start the implementation from the volume control >> > > objects, but let's not stop the discussion about volume classes / audio >> > > groups, because I will need to implement a client API for working with >> > > volume classes anyway. The sooner I know how to do it, the better. >> > >> > We have 3 orthogonal issues here: >> > >> > 1. Addition of volume control objects / information to allow balance >> > to be represented adequately > > These two things are orthogonal too. The point of volume control objects > isn't that they allow better balance representation. The balance thing > is involved only because if we introduce volume control objects anyway, > it's an opportunity to switch to a better balance representation. Then I guess this brings me back to the original question of what problem the volume control objects actually solve right now. -- Arun
