At Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:28:42 +0400,
Stas Sergeev wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Hello.
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Though, I think the snd-pcsp driver could be better built on the top
> > of input pcspkr driver, or coexist with it.  Then we'll have no more
> > conflict about platform name space.
> I was trying this in the past.
> This never worked out very well.

Why?

quoted text
> I disliked the dependancies.
> Either snd-pcsp was loading pcspkr,
> or there had to be the global variable
> to prevent the concurrent access, and
> that hurts modularity.

But you anyway enable the input pcspkr feature in your snd-pcsp code.
So, basically you depend on (or build on) it.

quoted text
> > When you compare input pcspkr.c and sound pcsp_input.c, you can find
> > that most of codes are identical.
> Yep, its a copy/paste mainly.
> I wanted a complete replacement.
> Back then, I've been told that multiple
> drivers controlling the same device is
> never a good idea. But I won't be surprised
> if that have changed since. :)
> 
> > What we'd need is a hook on
> > pcspkr.c that adds a dynamic check whether snd-pcsp (or any ohter)
> > is running.
> How?

What you need is a way to check whether input pcspkr can be usable or
not.  You can add a function pointer, for example.

quoted text
> And also, with snd-pcsp you have a
> mixer control to disable the beeps,
> which I find sometimes even more
> usefull than the pcm sound itself. :)

Yes, that seems useful.


Takashi
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/