Re: 2.6.25-mm1 (snd-pcsp doesn't like DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:02:06 +0400,
Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> +	printk(KERN_WARNING "PCSP: CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is enabled, "
> >> +		KERN_WARNING "which may make the sound noisy.\n");
> > Missing \n in the first line?
> This was intentional - wanted it to
> print in a single line. You see a space
> there for that reason.
> Should the second KERN_WARNING be removed
> then, or what is the problem exactly?

Then you don't need KERN_WARNING there.
The problem is that you need KERN_* prefix again after the line break
(\n).  Your original patch didn't do that properly.


> >> - Prevent pcspkr from being built together
> >> > with snd-pcsp.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp@aknet.ru>
> > Thanks, applied to my git tree.
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tiwai/sound-2.6.git
> > Meanwhile, we need to add a similar depenency to snd-pcsp as well, no?
> I personally don't think so.
> snd-pcsp has the excact copy of the pcspkr
> code built-in, so I thought pcspkr can be
> obsoleted in the future. From that point of
> view, having snd-pcsp enabled and not even
> seeing pcspkr in a menuconfig is fine.
> While otherwise (you ocasionally enable
> pcspkr and don't even see snd-pcsp then)
> is not fine.

No, I don't think input-pcspkr would be ever easily obsoleted by
snd-pcsp.  People definitely want a system without the sound subsystem
but with a beep.

> You mentioned earlier that you would like
> to be able to swap those drivers dynamically,
> but... what's the use? With such a dependancy
> added, many people will not even know about
> snd-pcsp as they already have pcspkr enabled.

Think about distro.  They could distribute both modules if both modules
can be replacible.  Otherwise, snd-pcsp won't be enabled on most
distros, I guess.


Takashi