From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Henningsson Subject: Re: Shared volume control again Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:12:14 +0100 Message-ID: <54511FEE.40906@canonical.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A312604B5 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:12:12 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 2014-10-29 18:02, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Hi, > > thinking of the problem about shared volume controls again, I stumbled > on a case where your suggested solution doesn't work well. Namely, > when a headphone volume is shared for two headphones (one on the > laptop and one on the dock), how should it be named? One is > "Headphone" and another is "Dock Headphone". That's a bit tricky. > > So, in the end, we need the mapping representation somehow more > explicitly than the control name. > > Thoughts? In practice, it seems like we more often than not share DAC for all headphones. Also it is very common today that a jack called "Front Headphone" has a volume control called only "Headphone". That's the status quo. As a result we have only one headphone path in PulseAudio for all types of headphones. And it kind of works as long as we *always* share DAC between the different headphones. And when we don't, they're usually both controlled by a vmaster anyway. I haven't seen anything else recently, are you planning to make "headphone" and "dock headphone" have separate volume controls? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic