On 2 February 2016 at 18:06, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 09:53 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 13:42 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >> > On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 13:06 +0530, arun at accosted.net wrote: >> > > From: Arun Raghavan <git at arunraghavan.net> >> > > >> > > This sets up the default sink sample spec to match what we expect, >> > > rather than assuming that the canceller will set this up (our >> > > assumption >> > > is that we'll use 32 kHz mono unless someone explicitly overrides >> > > this). >> > >> > I have trouble understanding this description. Maybe rewording is >> > needed? >> > >> > What does "what we expect" mean? You set the rate and channels to 32 >> > kHz mono, why is that our "expectation"? Does something break if this >> > expectation is violated via user configuration? The sink and source >> > rates seem to be configurable (matching rates between source and sink >> > is enforced, though). The sink channel setup seems to be forced to be >> > mono, while the source channel map can be configured. What are the >> > reasons behind this particular mix of configurability and hardcoding? >> > Some comments about this in the sample spec initialization code might >> > be a good idea. >> > >> > I'm not sure why you describe the choice of using 32 kHz mono as an >> > "assumption". Defaulting to 32 kHz mono is what the code does, in >> > what >> > way is that an assumption? >> > >> > Overall, it remains unclear why this change is done. >> >> In the original code, I picked 32 kHz mono as the format to keep >> computational complexity at something that seemed would work well on >> low-end hardware (basically netbooks) without losing too much in the >> way of quality. >> >> Prior to this change, the code assumes that the canceller will pick >> something similar for us on the sink side, based on what we're >> requesting on the source side (which is that fixed format). >> >> Does that make more sense now? > > Maybe. Is this correct: The intention has always been to configure low > enough parameters to keep CPU consumption down. Prior to this change, > we assumed that the EC backend would override the sink parameters based > on the source parameters to achieve this goal, and with this change we > remove that assumption by forcing the default parameters for the sink > to be low enough. > > I hope you rewrite the commit message. Yep, I'll rewrite the message, probably just reusing this text.
