On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 09:29 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > Since many years ago we have an API for setting default source/sink. > > Our default routing today is more port centric. So our UIs (at least the > unity/gnome one) has developed ways around this, so that when a port is > selected it first selects the right profile if needed. > > The problem is that in this world it's becoming more difficult to detect > what the user actually wants, when the result is a chain of API calls. E > g, if we first get a "set profile" call, we're not certain whether this > is the user wanting to change the profile for the currently active port, > or if this is the first part of a transition to a new port. This problem description isn't really detailed enough for me to understand what you're trying to solve. > To overcome this problem, we should have some new API enabling the UI to > set the port directly. E g like this: > > pa_set_card_port(card, port, profile, bool default) > > If "profile" is NULL, PA is free to choose the most fitting profile. > If default is true, it will not only set the port, but also set the > default sink/source. > (Card and port must be set.) > > This looks to me like a perquisite for better port-based routing. (And > then we must get the UIs to actually use it, too.) But I'm not sure if > this interferes with e g Tanu's long time routing plans. > What do you think? >From your description the only genuinely new functionality would be the ability to tell the server to activate a port without choosing the profile explicitly. Is that correct? That certainly wouldn't conflict with any of my plans. -- Tanu
