Re: [s-h] Re: ALSA patch for 2.5.2pre9 kernel

[Jaroslav Kysela]

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 <[e-mail]>
SuSE Linux    http://www.suse.com
ALSA Project  http://www.alsa-project.org