Alsa 0.9 and 2.4 kernel

Alsa 0.9 and 2.4 kernel

[Joerg Mayer]

Are there any plans to send alsa 0.9 (or 1.0 or whatever) to Marcelo for
inclusion into the official 2.4 tree? Another question in the same line:
Would renaming the modules for 2.4 to the same names as for 2.5 make sense?
I think so because the 2.5 naming is the way of the future and having
different naming schemes should be fixed as early as possible.

 ciao
       Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer                                          <jmayer@loplof.de>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.


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

Re: Alsa 0.9 and 2.4 kernel

[Takashi Iwai]

At Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:25:53 +0200,
Joerg Mayer wrote:
> 
> Are there any plans to send alsa 0.9 (or 1.0 or whatever) to Marcelo for
> inclusion into the official 2.4 tree?

i don't believe that alsa will be intergated into 2.4 line.
this will bring too much diffs - the whole bunch of oss tree is
moved, if we keep the consistent structure with 2.5.

> Another question in the same line:
> Would renaming the modules for 2.4 to the same names as for 2.5 make sense?
> I think so because the 2.5 naming is the way of the future and having
> different naming schemes should be fixed as early as possible.

all the current alsa-kernel codes are based on 2.5, and we provide
additional wrappers for 2.4.  is there any problem in this regard?

btw, there is an unofficial patch set for 2.4 to include the alsa.
	ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/alsa/2.4-patches	

ciao,

Takashi


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

Re: Alsa 0.9 and 2.4 kernel

[Joerg Mayer]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 04:41:39PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Are there any plans to send alsa 0.9 (or 1.0 or whatever) to Marcelo for
> > inclusion into the official 2.4 tree?
> 
> i don't believe that alsa will be intergated into 2.4 line.
> this will bring too much diffs - the whole bunch of oss tree is
> moved, if we keep the consistent structure with 2.5.

I agree that oss must not be touched in 2.4, but I see no reason to
not include it (as an alternative to oss) in the official tree, especially
as the distribution vendors are adopting it already.

> all the current alsa-kernel codes are based on 2.5, and we provide
> additional wrappers for 2.4.  is there any problem in this regard?

I obviously wrote a different question than I intended to ask :-/
I was wondering about module names, nothing else.

> btw, there is an unofficial patch set for 2.4 to include the alsa.
> 	ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/alsa/2.4-patches	

Thanks!

  Ciao
         Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer                                          <jmayer@loplof.de>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.


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

Re: Alsa 0.9 and 2.4 kernel

[Takashi Iwai]

At Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:46:42 +0200,
Joerg Mayer wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 04:41:39PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > Are there any plans to send alsa 0.9 (or 1.0 or whatever) to Marcelo for
> > > inclusion into the official 2.4 tree?
> > 
> > i don't believe that alsa will be intergated into 2.4 line.
> > this will bring too much diffs - the whole bunch of oss tree is
> > moved, if we keep the consistent structure with 2.5.
> 
> I agree that oss must not be touched in 2.4, but I see no reason to
> not include it (as an alternative to oss) in the official tree, especially
> as the distribution vendors are adopting it already.

the problem is that 2.5 tree puts oss stuffs on the different location
(linux/sound/oss) than 2.4 has (linux/driver/sound). 
thus, we cannot keep the same tree structure between 2.4 and 2.5.

yes, it's possible to put only alsa tree but i don't see big
advantage there.

> > all the current alsa-kernel codes are based on 2.5, and we provide
> > additional wrappers for 2.4.  is there any problem in this regard?
> 
> I obviously wrote a different question than I intended to ask :-/
> I was wondering about module names, nothing else.

renaming which module, do you mean?
i don't think any sound-related module names have been changed since
2.4.


Takashi


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