Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:18:34 +0100 (CET) | From | Jaroslav Kysela <> | Subject | Re: [s-h] Re: ALSA patch for 2.5.2pre9 kernel |
| |
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:52:16 +0100, > Abramo wrote: > > > > "J.A. Magallon" wrote: > > > > > > On 20020108 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > >On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > >> > Would't it be better to split drivers: > > > >> > > > > >> > sound/core.c > > > >> > sound/alsa/alsa-core.c > > > >> > sound/alsa/drivers/alsa-emu10k.c > > > >> > sound/oss/oss-core.c > > > >> > sound/oss/drivers/oss-emu10k.c > > > >> > > > >> Thats much harder to do randomg greps on and to find stuff,than drivers > > > >> first > > > > > > > >I agree. Put drivers separately, let's not split it up more than that. > > > > > > > > > > What would you do with drivers with the same name (source code file) > > > in alsa and oss ? > > > Sound is special because you have two implementations of the same subsystem > > > living together. And eventually in a (near?) future, the oss subtree > > > will be killed and the alsa one would go up one level, just as is. Much > > > cleaner. And you will end with > > > > > > sound/alsa-core.c > > > sound/drivers/alsa-driver.c > > > > I think it's better to face this big change once and to move the OSS > > stuff now in its definitive place (where it might be removed in future). > > > > So we'd have: > > sound/ > > sound/oss_native > > sound/oss_emul > > sound/synth > > sound/include > > drivers/sound/i2c > > drivers/sound/isa > > drivers/sound/pci > > drivers/sound/ppc > > On the list above, to where OSS (hw specific) codes come? Into a > single directory, sound/oss_native? Or both ALSA and OSS drivers are > mixed into drivers/sound/*? > I'd like to see ALSA and OSS codes are separated into different > directories... Otherwise it's too confusing. > > And how about drivers/sound/generic for generic hardware codes such as > ac97_codec.c? > > > > I still have some doubts about hardware specific include files: > > a) sound/include > > b) drivers/sound/{i2c,isa,pci,ppc} > > c) drivers/sound/include > > > > Currently my vote would go for b), but I see drawbacks for this solution > > (for generic chip include files, like ac97 or ak4531 ones). Perhaps it's > > better to have a mixed solution (partly b) and partly c) > > Agreed. The hw specific header files should be bound with *.c code > together.
The problem is that we should export some header files to user space as well to allow access to hardware related features.
Jaroslav
----- Jaroslav Kysela <perex@suse.cz> SuSE Linux http://www.suse.com ALSA Project http://www.alsa-project.org
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |