On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 21:41 -0300, Jo?o Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Tanu Kaskinen >> <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > If the discovery object was just created, the devices haven't been >> > enumerated yet, so module-bluez5-device doesn't work without loading >> > module-bluez5-discover first. This is nothing new - it looks like the >> > old code did the same thing. I wonder why we even bother to have a >> > separate device module, if it can't be used without the discovery >> > module. >> > >> >> Bringing the discussion to where it belongs, as I said on 40/56, >> manually loading the device module doesn't work anymore. I don't know >> when it stopped working, but I was never something we cared much >> about, so perhaps we should explicitly not support manually loading >> it. Is there a way to enforce this via PulseAudio's module-loading >> system? > > Sorry, I ruined your attempt to have the discussion where it belongs. I > replied to this in the previous mail. > >> IIRC was Lennart's suggestion to have this architecture, back in 2008, >> which is similar to how module-detect/module-udev-detect loads audio >> drivers. Even not supporting loading module-bluez5-device without >> loading module-bluez5-discover, it seems to me that there is a better >> separation to have one module for each I/O thread and Bluetooth card >> than having all cards/threads being handled by one module. > > In what way is it better? It's entirely possible to keep the code in > separate files without also having a separate module. I don't personally > see the benefit of a separate module. > I don't think we should change this architecture at this very moment. Maybe we can get back to this point later on, if we decide the benefits are worth the work. -- Jo?o Paulo Rechi Vita http://about.me/jprvita
