[alsa-devel] Moving sound/* to drivers/ ?

[Jaroslav Kysela]

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 08:26:39AM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote:
> > 
> > > On 22-05-08 01:37, Jeff Garzik 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)
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Yes, it was one reason why I used 'sound/' as root of the ALSA tree. The 
> > second reason was to move old OSS tree to new directory to make less 
> > confusion. And the third reason was to just keep ALSA directory same as in 
> > our local development tree (which is out-of-kernel tree - containing only 
> > ALSA parts).
> That out-of-tree stuff could mirror the kernel directory layout - no?
> Then you could have both drivers/ and sound/ in that tree.

We already translate Documentation/sound/alsa/ to Documentation/ and 
include/sound/ to include/ directories in our mirror tree. So adding one 
more exception is not a big deal.

						Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex at perex.cz>
Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer
ALSA Project, Red Hat, Inc.