[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: pulseaudio and espeakup



Hello,

john doe, le mer. 02 mai 2018 10:06:42 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 5/2/2018 1:40 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > I'm afraid the only solution we have is that both espeakup and
> > speech-dispatcher just release the audio device when they think they
> > won't have anything to speak in the close future.

FI, I have worked on the espeakup part, which is relatively
straightforward: the speakup screen driver knows when the console is
switched to a graphical VT, and tell espeakup to suspend itself, so the
screen reader inside the Xorg session can (re)start speaking. The kernel
part has just been submitted, so it will land at best in linux 4.18.

> Or the user let them know using command line option.

That can not work for the initial console -> lightdm switch.

> > Of course if an application in Xorg is still
> > using the audio card, pulseaudio will keep running the card and espeakup
> > won't be able to take it. I don't think we have any solution against
> > that.
> 
> Can't a new option be added in pulseaudio to force the release of the
> soundcard?

Actually there is already pulseaudio -k which terminates the pulseaudio
server. That's a bit harsh though :)

http://git.0pointer.net/reserve.git/tree/reserve.txt
however documents how we can tell pulseaudio to release the soundcard.
That could be implemented as a simple tool which can be called from the
X session.

> Given that the delay option is not ideal an other thing that could be done
> would be to implement a shortcut that would do the necessary step(s) to be
> able to switch back and forth between the DM and the console.

Well, we'd rather see this automatic. Having to press two shortcuts to
switch to the console would look odd.

I see that Xorg has a XFree86_has_VT property on the root window which
is 1/0 depending whether the VT is active or not. We could have a tool
which monitors it to trigger the audio device release on switching off
from Xorg.

Samuel


Reply to: