Re: Moving sound/* to drivers/ ?

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

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 should try to opimize the kernel directory layout to fit the kernel best
and then adapt the out-of-tree stuff to the kernel (IMHO).

	Sam