From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Schmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] ascenario: Add scenario support to alsa-lib Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:11:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20091001141145.GC5936@excalibur.local> References: <1254390436-5283-1-git-send-email-stefan@datenfreihafen.org> <1254390436-5283-2-git-send-email-stefan@datenfreihafen.org> <20091001122835.GC14417@sirena.org.uk> <20091001131948.GA5936@excalibur.local> <20091001132417.GA26663@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <6160a5130910010639u11b764bfh92cfb6f6aef671c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sirius.lasnet.de (sirius.lasnet.de [78.47.116.19]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9B510399E for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:12:00 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6160a5130910010639u11b764bfh92cfb6f6aef671c@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: pl bossart Cc: Stefan Schmidt , Mark Brown , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Ian Molton , Graeme Gregory , Stefan Schmidt , Liam Girdwood List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hello. On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 08:39, pl bossart wrote: > +/** QOS > + * > + * Defines Audio Quality of Service > + */ > +#define SND_QOS_HIFI 0 > +#define SND_QOS_VOICE 1 > +#define SND_QOS_SYSTEM 2 > > My $0.02 comment is that I don't know what QOS entails. I have no > issue with all the other defines, but this one isn't quite clear. > What exactly is supposed to happen if I set the QOS to voice? A lower > SNR for voice? A lower latency for voice with a lower group delay? A > lower oversampling ratio? An optimized routing for voice? All of the > above? Good point. The key is here that some systems offer lower quality audio which also has a lower power consumption. That would save power when being on a voice call but give you the best quality when listening to your music. > +#define SND_SCN_PHONECALL_HANDSET "phonecall handset" > +#define SND_SCN_PHONECALL_HEADSET "phonecall headset" > +#define SND_SCN_PHONECALL_BLUETOOTH "phonecall bluetooth" > +#define SND_SCN_PHONECALL_IP "phonecall ip" > > Same here, this is ambiguous, you can have an IP call over bluetooth. > Which scenario would you use then? > I guess if you want the scenarios to be used by apps in a portable > way, a clearer definition of each scenario is probably needed? I removed the defines here. We don't use them and should re-think and define them when we actually implement its users. Thanks for your comments. regards Stefan Schmidt