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

[Abramo Bagnara <abramo@alsa-project.org>]

"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

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)

Will this solution be able to satisfy everybody? ;-)

-- 
Abramo Bagnara                       mailto:abramo@alsa-project.org

Opera Unica                          Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy

ALSA project               http://www.alsa-project.org
It sounds good!