[alsa-devel] Jack event API - decision needed
david.henningsson at canonical.com
Tue Jun 21 14:11:15 CEST 2011
On 2011-06-21 01:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:53:46PM +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
>> On 2011-06-20 19:07, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:37:25PM +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
>>> Looking at the patch the main thing that jumps out at me without
>>> any knowledge of the udev code is that the patch will end up classifying
>>> video output jacks as audio even if they've no audio capability which is
>>> obviously not correct.
>> In suggested implementation, they will only be marked audio jacks if
>> their parent object is a sound card.
> Oh, then in that case we've got another issue in that jacks that happen
> not to be associated directly with a sound card for some reason (they're
> implemented by the embedded controller and exposed via ACPI for example)
> won't be made available to applications.
Which is not a problem IMO, because in the desktop world this does not
happen (or at least I've never seen it), and in the embedded world you
have PA running as root anyway.
>>> I still don't entirely understand the technical issue you're trying to
>>> address here - this doesn't seem specific to audio.
>> I think this is a difference between embedded space and desktop
>> space. In embedded space, a hardware designer can decide to connect
>> the "take a camera picture" button to "line in jack detect" just
>> because that saves him an extra GPIO chip (and "line in" isn't
>> connected anyway). Those things don't happen on normal PC , but
>> instead, things must be auto-detectable.
> I'm sorry but I'm not sure I follow the connection between the text
> you've written above and the point made in the text you're quoting. The
> physical implementation of the hardware doesn't seem strongly related to
> how Linux distributions manage permissions for the interfaces exposed by
> the drivers that manage that hardware.
> If you're talking about the support for buttons that's nothing to do
> with wiring random unrelated controls to jack detection circuits (which
> would be highly unusual as pretty much any detection specific
> electronics are highly specialised and difficult to use for anything
> else). It's there because most headsets have at least one button on
> them, implemented by shorting the mic to ground and used for
> play/pause/call functionality, and some have more complex arrangements.
> I've got a laptop sitting on this table which implements such
> As far as the implementation stuff goes you do get all sorts of odd
> stuff on PCs, anything you've done that involves ACPI interaction (like
> the Thinkpad extra volume control that was being discussed recently) is
> going to be that sort of oddity.
If you ask me, I think the Thinkpad stuff should be implemented with
connections between the hda-intel and thinkpad-acpi driver inside the
kernel, and we can leave userspace out of it - userspace would just see
the hda-intel card, possibly with an extra mute or volume control. But
that's another story.
>>> only aren't working correctly in at least this case. It feels like if
>>> we understood why the heuristics are making a bad call here we might be
>>> able to come up with a better solution.
>> AFAICT, the current "heuristics", is to assign all input devices to
>> root and root only.
> OK, well that doesn't seem like an immediately obvious choice. I can
> imagine there might be some concern around keyboards due to passwords
> but in general it doesn't seem obvious that the console user shouldn't
> be able to read physical input devices on the box (which is the case
> we're trying to implement here; we don't need write support). Do all
> classes of input device currently have some root only service to mediate
> access to them, and if that is the model we're using perhaps it'd make
> sense to have one for this with a dbus interface or whatever that
> PulseAudio can talk do rather than to have it talking direct to the
If I look at what /dev/input devices I have here, that's keyboard,
mouse, and ACPI buttons (power, lid close etc). AFAIK, all of those go
through the X input layer. Play/pause keys should go through there as
well, but are you saying that audio jack events should also go through
the X input layer?
If you are, you're welcome to try to fit it in the 248 keycodes that are
already occupied, design a new X input extension, or whatever is the
right solution for that. I don't know myself.
If you're not, then that's why this is specific to audio.
>>>> For options 2a) and 2b) I guess the existing /dev/input thing should
>>>> be deprecated and/or removed. So part of decision should maybe be
>>>> based on information about how widespread the usage of these devices
>>>> are currently...?
>>> There's a reasonable amount of usage in the embedded space.
>> But maintaining two different implementations of input jacks without
>> at least strongly deprecating one of them, lead to application
>> programmers being confused, kernel being big and bloated, and so
Do you agree that maintaining two different implementations of input
jacks is something we should avoid?
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
More information about the Alsa-devel