At Thu, 22 May 2008 01:53:06 +0200, 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) Well, no, I originally thought moving all $LINUX/sound to $LINUX/drivers/sound. The sound core stuff is already in sound/core, so it can be peacefully in drivers/sound/core, just like other drivers like USB, V4L, etc. > 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. I think it's a question of the balance. The net stuff is huge, 10 times more codes than the sound core. An argument for keeping the sound core in /sound is that this is used not only by sound drivers but also by some video drivers. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
