24.03.2015 13:21, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 07:40 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: >> >> On 2015-03-23 18:45, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >>> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:02 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: >>>> I came across this link [1], where they test a Thunderbolt connection >>>> and finds it to show up as "HDMI/Displayport 2". Maybe >>>> "HDMI/DisplayPort/Thunderbolt 2" is too long, so we should perhaps come >>>> up with something better. E g, how about "Video Link 2"? >>> >>> Is it terribly hard to actually get the link type, so that we could >>> accurately say whether it's HDMI, DisplayPort or Thunderbolt? If yes, >>> then "Video Link" sounds pretty good to me. >> >> Well, getting the monitor name is even better IMO, and we already fetch >> that. The problem is that nobody uses it. And anyhow I think we need a >> good fallback for when we can't get anything better. > > Yes, I was talking about the good fallback, I agree that the monitor > name is better. > > If you're not going to do the work of figuring out the link type, I'm > fine with changing the default description to "Video Link N". I think that we have to show "Video Link N" anyway, as a fallback for outputs that currently have no connected monitors. So I am also fine with the rename. E.g. my use case involves the "Digital Stereo (HDMI2) Output" profile. When my LG TV is on, then we can of course show "LG TV" as the monitor name. But when it is off, we still need some placeholder name for the intention to send sound to this port. -- Alexander E. Patrakov
