Re: Is it time for remove (crap) ALSA from kernel tree ?

Takashi Iwai
2007-06-25T12:58:19Z

At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:42 +0200,
Olivier Galibert wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > So, do you mean the soft-mixing is the biggest issue? That's just a
> > part of a design issue, and if we want to go to that way, the
> > impelemtation would be trivial, regardless on ALSA or not. Totally
> > irrelevant argument regarding "remove ALSA".
>
> Soft mixing is actually the biggest issue because if you had
> generalized soft-mixing in the kernel-visible audio ports[1] you would
> win two things:
>
> - programs could use the OSS API without interfering with the ALSA one
> or which each other
>
> - programs coult use the ALSA kernel API directly without interfering
> either, which would allow alternative libalsa implementations for
> those who hate the current one
>
> Frankly, mandatory libraries are extremely annoying, and mandatory
> extremely complex overdesigned libraries are simply unbearable.

Hm... I don't agree much with the virtual relay device solution.
I once experimentally implemented an ALSA-OSS virtual kernel driver.
But, it just gives more complexity.

Yes, the library solution has merits and demerits. The library should
have been differently designed. But, I don't think the virtual relay
is the best solution just because you can use a bare kernel
interface...

Takashi