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. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
