Re: ANN: AudioScience driver beta 0.3 (0.9.6)

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:56:56 -0700 (PDT),
Eliot Blennerhassett wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> >>>any chance to get the whole things into alsa tree?
> >>
> >>Takashi,
> >>
> >>I would love to get this into the ALSA tree.  
> >>How do I go about doing this? 
> >>Are there changes I need to make to the code to make it "acceptable"?
> > 
> > 
> > firstly, Jaroslav and I will review the patch.
> > the patch itself looks almost ok, if the indentation follows the
> > standard kernel style (see linux/Documentation/CondingStyle).
> 
> Getting asihpi.c into standard style should not be too much work.
 
ok.

> >>When you say the "whole thing", do you mean the ALSA part of our driver, or
> >>including our underlying HPI driver.
> > 
> > i meant the latter, including HPI driver.
> > 
> > since the HPI driver part is the essential part of the driver, we
> > surely need more review for that, too.
> 
> Please, go ahead... tell me the worst - I won't be surprised.
>  
> > IIRC, the HPI driver is GPL, so won't it be problem, right? 
> 
> No problem with using the code.  However, it is extremely unlikely that we will
> redo all the HPI files to meet the CodingStandard.  I have read it and it does
> say "preferred" not "mandatory".
 
sure, it's not mandatory.

i don't think the coding style is a big matter.
i asked it because it's simply *better* for maintainability.  but if
you'd like to keep it, it's ok, too.

the question is, again, whether we should include HPI driver code in
the ALSA tree.  this means that the code would be changed often by us,
ALSA developers, or by other people, too.  what do you think?


Takashi


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf