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. -- Arun _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
