On 05/20/2017 10:51 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 09:29 +0800, Hui Wang wrote: >> Hello Tanu, >> >> Could you please help take a look at this patch? This patch really fix >> an issue on some Dell machines (with realtek codec and has no internal >> microphone on them), And I think this minor change will not introduce >> regression, it is pretty safe. > The patch only changes the order in which headset-mic and headphone-mic > are listed, and that order should not have any real impact on anything. > There's clearly a bug somewhere, but the bug can't be that the paths > are listed in the wrong order, since the order should not matter. Yes, you are right. In theory, the headset-mic and headphone-mic have the same priority, so exchanging their order should not have any real impact on anything. But in practice, this bug exposes that in some situation( when there are only headphone-mic and headset-mic, and neither of them is plugged in.), the headphone-mic is not suitable to be the default active_port. So do you think if it is acceptable that I don't exchange their order, I just adjust their priorities to make the headset-mic's priority a bit higher than headphone-mic's? > > If the port must not be headphone-mic when the user chooses headphones > in the UI, couldn't the UI program tell pulseaudio to switch to > headset-mic? > Yes, the UI program could do that. If it is not allowed to adjust their priorities, we have to change the UI program. Thanks, Hui.
