Takashi Iwai wrote: > 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. > Ah! I did not think of V4L. Once cycle seems OK to me. I hope it creates a warning message to the V4L developers, although, I don't see why you cannot include a patch to V4L together with all the other alsa cards drivers that would get into linux-next. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
