lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] for PAS16 functionality for 2.4
    On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

    > In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009091441260.785-100000@wr5z.localdomain> you wrote:
    > > The enclosed patch corrects the Makefile and makes appropriate changes
    > > to various doc files. Please consider accepting this for the next
    > > kernel. This patch is against 2.4.0-test8.
    >
    > Aehmm. Your Makefile patch looks very strange:
    >
    > > -obj-$(CONFIG_SOUND_PAS) += pas2.o sb_lib.o uart401.o
    > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SOUND_PAS) += pas2.o sb.o sb_lib.o uart401.o
    >
    > Why do you remove sb.o from the object list?
    > The pas2 driver has no code to use the functions in sb_lib.o -
    > It has only some code to enable the sb emulation of the pas2 card.
    > Either you remove both sb.o and sb_lib.o and the pas2 sb emulation is gone,
    > or you leave it as is. Alternative: you can add code to use the sb_lib.o
    > stuff directly from the pas2 driver (this is the best solution, IMHO).

    I know I misunderstand things occasionally, but it looks ok to
    me. Isn't that just an artifact of the diff/patch thing? I simply
    added sb.o to the line when I edited it. That's the way I've always
    seen diff act. It deletes the original line and adds in an identical
    line with what I added in. The second line above adds in an identical
    line with sb.o added to the line.

    > > - PAS16 compatible. Please read Documentation/sound/PAS16.
    > > + PAS16 compatible. Do not enable both PAS16 support and Soundblaster
    > > + support since PAS16 support includes support for Soundblaster.
    > > + Please read Documentation/sound/PAS16.
    >
    > Why not - there shouldn't really be an issue with it.
    > It builds fine for me (and the various distributions kernel rpms).
    > And I doubt there is any runtime problem with that ...

    No there isn't a runtime problem. Linus went through a phase recently
    where he forced people to clean up "warnings" during the compile
    stage. If you answer yes to both CONFIG_SOUND_PAS and CONFIG_SOUND_SB
    you get "warinings" like this:
    /mnt/hd/src/linux-2.3.99pre/Rules.make:267: target `uart401.o' given
    more than once in the same rule.

    My change eliminates that by eliminating the need to include both. It
    also makes thing clearer IMHO.

    > > - insmod opl3
    > > + modprobe opl3
    >
    > either works well ...

    Modprobe seems cleaner to me. It's an opinion and it's in my docfile so
    I didn't see it as that big of a deal.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.024 / U:0.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site