On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 08:26:39AM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > > > On 22-05-08 01:37, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > > Speaking as a former OSS driver maintainer, I always preferred > > > drivers/sound. > > > > > > Though Rene's suggestion (use both sound/ and drivers/sound/) might make > > > sense if the subsystem code is huge -- I supported the drivers/block/ -> > > > block/ code movement for example. > > > > Well, not _huge_ but ALSA is very much structured like that; large middle > > layer with "miniport" drivers (I do by the way expect this was also Takashi > > plan originally due to him using sound/* and not just "sound/"; that is, I > > took the * to be shorthand for isa, pci, usb and so on) > > > > 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). That out-of-tree stuff could mirror the kernel directory layout - no? Then you could have both drivers/ and sound/ in that tree. We should try to opimize the kernel directory layout to fit the kernel best and then adapt the out-of-tree stuff to the kernel (IMHO). Sam _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
