Re: Moving sound/* to drivers/ ?

Rene Herman
2008-05-22T08:09:38Z

On 22-05-08 08:26, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:

> On Thu, 22 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote:

>> From a structural view, the PCM core is just as much not a driver
>> as the IP protocol isn't one and moving all of sound/ to drivers/
>> would trade the current "why are the drivers not under drivers/?"
>> issue for a "why is all this non-driver code under drivers/?".
>>
>> This "net model" of sound/ and drivers/sound/ would be cleanest I
>> feel.
>
> Yes, it was one reason why I used 'sound/' as root of the ALSA tree.
> The second reason was to move old OSS tree to new directory to make
> less confusion. And the third reason was to just keep ALSA directory
> same as in our local development tree (which is out-of-kernel tree -
> containing only ALSA parts).
>
> I feel that from the maintenance perspective, having one directory is
> a plus. We have already 'drivers/usb/core', 'mmc/core',
> 'drivers/base' (ALSA toplevel and midlevel modules use functions from
> this tree) etc.

Yes, examples of the same thing. drivers/base still sort of fits, but yes.

Would the maintenance be really helped? As you said in another reply,
the external tree already shuffles Documentation/sound/alsa and
include/sound around anyway.

I don't feel very strongly about it or anything but it's also a kernel
statistics issue. Linus for example frequently announces new -rc's with
"90% is in drivers" and such and if large(r) parts of drivers/ consist
not of driver code that's a less useful metric.

> If we have general consensus that sound drivers should go to back to
> 'drivers/sound' then I would move all code. We can move 'sound/core'
> tree to '/sound' in next round later...

I'd expect that if you give up your nice top level directory you're not
getting it back later... :-)

Rene.