On 2014-10-24 22:33, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> In case there are two independent jacks for one port (e.g. Dock
> Headphone Jack and Headphone Jack), the availability ends up being
> incorrect for one of the first was _NO (not plugged) and the second gets
> _YES (plugged). Also pulse complains about the state being inconsistent
> which isn't true.
>
> Fix this by preferring higher states (_YES > _NO > _UNKNOWN)
Thanks, I agree with this conclusion. I didn't really know what to do
with one jack being yes and another being no, but the above reasoning
makes sense.
I'm not sure I'm happy with just a simple ">" comparison - in case we
add more jack states in the future, they might not fit with the ">"
scheme. But maybe we should deal with that when the problem comes and
just take your patch as-is now. What do other people think?
> ---
> src/modules/alsa/module-alsa-card.c | 10 ++--------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/modules/alsa/module-alsa-card.c b/src/modules/alsa/module-alsa-card.c
> index ed332e0..0026e0f 100644
> --- a/src/modules/alsa/module-alsa-card.c
> +++ b/src/modules/alsa/module-alsa-card.c
> @@ -335,14 +335,8 @@ static void report_port_state(pa_device_port *p, struct userdata *u) {
>
> cpa = jack->plugged_in ? jack->state_plugged : jack->state_unplugged;
>
> - /* "Yes" and "no" trumphs "unknown" if we have more than one jack */
> - if (cpa == PA_AVAILABLE_UNKNOWN)
> - continue;
> -
> - if ((cpa == PA_AVAILABLE_NO && pa == PA_AVAILABLE_YES) ||
> - (pa == PA_AVAILABLE_NO && cpa == PA_AVAILABLE_YES))
> - pa_log_warn("Availability of port '%s' is inconsistent!", p->name);
> - else
> + /* Prefer going towards _YES in case of multiple jacks */
> + if (cpa > pa)
> pa = cpa;
> }
>
>
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
