On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 19:09 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, at 6:47 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, at 4:33 PM, Sangchul Lee wrote: > > > > I'm thinking that we should change the avoid resampling flag on sinks to instead be avoid processing -- the idea being that we try not just to reconfigure to a given sample rate, but for the entire sample spec (and eventually channel map as well, once the reconfiguration patches are updated to address Tanu's comments). > > > > > > > > The rationale is that I'd like to avoid having one more aspect of configuration, and the use-case to avoid resampling almost certainly applies to at least bit depth (16 <-> 24, usually) at least, and at that point, why not everything. > > > > > > > > We could provide more fine-grained control (avoid-resampling/-remapping/-conversion/-channel-mix), but I don't see the benefit of this, so I figure a more overarching option is more likely to be useful. > > > > > > I agree with that. Although the pending patches(sorry to tanu, I'll > > > update soon that with applying your last comments :)) address > > > bit-depth within enabling 'avoid-resampling' option, I also think > > > changing the name to any other one is better than now. > > > (avoid-processing, avoid-resampler, or another one). > > > > One question -- in avoid-resampling mode, we have a lower bound on the > > sample rate (as the lowest of default and alternate sample rate). Should > > we do the same thing for channels, or let the channel count be as low as > > 1 if the media is so configured? > > > > I have a mild leaning towards the latter as a sanity check. > > Rethinking this, I think we should have a lower-bound defined by the sample-spec as a whole. What do you mean by "the sample-spec"? pa_core.default_sample_spec? Using that as a lower bound for everything seems reasonable to me. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk https://liberapay.com/tanuk
