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. -- Tanu
