On Thursday 2008-05-22 10:27, Takashi Iwai 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. I am in favor of keeping /sound around with the non-hardware-dependent code, much like /block does with regard to /drivers/block. So that's /sound for PCM/mixer etc. and /drivers/sound with the actual driver parts like cs46xx. Just like: >> 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. PS. But then again, I could also imagine /block (core) /block/drivers (drivers) /net (core) /net/drivers /sound /sound/drivers And the sound parts are already mostly there. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
