At Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:46:29 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
On 2011-03-07 10:37, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:22:42 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
I spend last Friday together with Bartłomiej Żogała fixing up a long standing issue with Lenovo Y530, which has 4+1 internal speakers on a Realtek 888. And we all want that supported by the auto parser, don't we?
Well, it's a bit flaky. The current behavior assigning speakers only as "Speaker" is intentional. This is a simplification to avoid the conflict with the case where both multiple line-outs and multiple speakers are present.
In that case, nothing changes - this code path is not taken, since line_out_type wouldn't be AUTO_PIN_SPEAKER_OUT.
Hm, I see.
And, in general, I don't like to get rid of "Speaker" notation. If any, we should keep "Speaker" with a channel prefix.
This is indeed tricky, and I think we've stranded on a similar issue here once before.
Btw, in the case of this particular machine, the "Front" controls the headphones as well, so the name is accidentally correct.
OK, then it's good to take. Let me check these patches a bit. Then I'll merge them.
I've even seen a machine where a DAC controlled two out of three fronts (e g headphones and line-out but not speaker, or something like that) - how would you name that?
It's a difficult choice, yeah. If I would have to choose, I'd take "Headphone" and "Speaker", and make line-out implicit. But this is neither ideal solution, of course.
Perhaps it is time to start to come up with a more reliable naming scheme for 2.6.39 or 2.6.40, that would take into account the more trickier combinations as well.
The time for 2.6.39 is almost closed :) But I fully agree with a major re-design for more consistent control names.
thanks,
Takashi