From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: Splitting up the HDA-INTEL modules Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:47:40 +0100 Message-ID: References: <478CFD32.50405@harddisk.is-a-geek.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CE3243F8 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:47:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <478CFD32.50405@harddisk.is-a-geek.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Marco Schuster Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:36:34 +0100, Marco Schuster wrote: > > Hi all, > > when I looked today through the files of the snd-hda-intel module, I > was a bit shocked by this complex amount of code (patch_realtek.c for > example). I would think about splitting up the code in a way each > chipset gets its own .c file - which will make debugging, patching or > editing a lot easier IMO, and for second people can then comment on > just their specific chipset in config. > > What do you think about this? > > Marco > > PS: If there are no objections, I'll start working on realtek.c on > weekend. Cons: - Too many kernel configs are also no preferred option. I already splitted up to several configs, and I got many stupid bug reports. - Moving the code makes hard to track the changes, especially the regression between versions. I'm strongly for the solution with the user-space setup tool. The project was stopped simply because of my lack of time. Takashi