[alsa-devel] PC Beep or PC Speaker or just Beep? and HDA Beep code...

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:24 +0100 (CET),
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> 
> >>> I don't see a problem. If you find the behaviour too risky, we can limit
> >>> the register/unregister calls in time. Like one register call in one
> >>> second.
> >> 
> >> Oh no, that'd be very strange behavior as an mixer element.
> >
> > I recoded patch to delay the detach only to get consistent and abuse prone 
> > behaviour:
> >
> > http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-kernel.git;a=commit;h=ba9c08c61338f298df34445715287beeca94b024
> > http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-kernel.git;a=commit;h=0633c8e977b7708ea122392d87cc15ca448fc5d5
> >
> > The HDA beep output is muted immediately, of course.
> 
> Any chance to get my HDA beep updates merged to linux-next tree?
> 
> [ALSA] hda_intel: Digital PC Beep - change behaviour for input layer
> [ALSA] hda_intel: Digital PC Beep - delay input device unregistration
> [ALSA] hda: beep - add missing cancel_delayed_work
> 
> Reasons for merge:
> 
> - it's tested
> - it's compatible with all kernels (including ones without
>    the future input layer modifications)
> - the code is more structured which can help us to rebind
>    "on request" input registration to another logic later
> - Beep mute switch now disables the tone generator on the off request -
>    it might be considered as bug in the previous beep code

Well, as mentioned, the only thing I'm really concerned is that the
registration/free is done so easily via a mixer switch.  A mixer
switch is very often and carelessly changed by a joe user,
intentionally or unintentionally.  Thus, doing registration/free that
can involve with the the other layer in that level is somewhat weird.

IOW, I'm fine with an additional implementation for the dynamic beep
on/off.  But, the mixer interface doesn't look like the best interface
to me.


thanks,

Takashi