Re: patch driver-core-warn-about-duplicate-driver-names-on-the-same-bus.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

Takashi Iwai
2008-05-02T16:00:38Z

At Fri, 02 May 2008 19:38:03 +0400,
Stas Sergeev wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > And this won't work in most cases. People don't want to replace the
> > existing pcspkr driver with snd-pcsp. They don't want to load the
> > sound subsystem on their systems just because of beep.
> Why should they? They may just stick with
> pcspkr driver if they want.

... if it's not built-in. And you'd need extra to manage selectively
loading the driver for the very same platform name.

> > If you compare pcspkr.c and pcsp_input.c, it's found that the only
> > essential difference is the additional check at the head of the event
> > handler:
> > if (atomic_read(&pcsp_chip.timer_active) || !pcsp_chip.pcspkr)
> > return 0;
> > If this can be added dynamically to input pcspkr.c, no big point to
> > have duped codes.
> Another point is PM callbacks. Somehow
> snd-pcsp will have to register them with
> pcspkr.

Hmm, isn't platform PM hook enough?
pcspkr.c just sends an event at suspend or shutdown to the event
handler. So, if the event was shut up at the beginning in the
handler, nothing would be needed.

> > Distros usually make input-pcspkr as built-in, not as module.
> > So, snd-pcsp is practically unusable on standard kernels of major
> > distros as is, unfortunately...
> Oh, that's really bad, I didn't know
> they do. For what reason? And how then
> people disable the beeps?

Why real men need to disable beep? :)

> Btw, could you please name a few? At
> least Fedora has it as a module.

Well, then I remember wrongly or an old information...

Takashi