At Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:06:51 +0000, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > 2009/1/12 Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>: > > At Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:42:06 +0000, > > James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > >> > >> Sounds good to me. > >> One can keep the wrapper outside of the kernel, and only available in > >> alsa-driver for those out of tree people. > > > > Yes, that's good. > > I think it'd be better to do that after one kernel-cycle later for a > > softer landing, though. > > > > How soft do we need this? One kernel cycle is enough. > The change is probably max of 3 lines of code per sound card that has > an out of tree driver. > The only one I am aware of is the xfi one. With the wrapper being more > than 3 lines of code being put into the kernel only to be removed > again seems a little un-necessary to me. > For internal kernel changes, I don't think we should care about out of > kernel drivers. None of the rest of the kernel developers go out of > their way for anything out-of-mainline. Well, my main concern isn't about out-of-kernel drivers like xfi, but the drivers that will come from other trees. The codes outside ALSA tree, for example, V4L, can't be always controlled by us (suppose a new V4L driver comes in for the next kernel). And these are more or less "mainline" development. If you see the linux-next development, you'll find how the internal API can be a pain among several tree merges. A typical API change (that has been often seen in driver-core area) introduces first a wrapper while converting all in the present kernel, then kill it at the next cycle. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
