At Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:38:07 +0100 (CET), Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Paul Davis wrote: > > > >I monitor creative drivers, and they have not any extra features > > >(except missing an user space linker for FX8010 DSP - different design of > > >microcode maintaince). ALSA offers the wavetable synthesis for EMU10K1 for > > >months, while the creative driver offers only PCM & mixer capabilities. > > > > so do you feel absolutely comfortable in asserting that for all the > > hardware that both OSS and ALSA support, ALSA's support is more or > > less as good as the OSS code? > > Well, because the userbase is different, ALSA probably has not the code > tested so much. Although, we do some syncing with the OSS code, it's > difficult to track all OSS changes. That's true. And not all ALSA drivers have been tested well on the current version, especially ones for old ISA chips or SB (and its compatible) driver. In such a case, "good" means "more stable" or "support more chips". That's what lack ALSA lacks of sometimes.
Thus I'd like to propose that at least we should check the functionality of _each_ driver before sending patches to Linus. If no one can check the driver, then we need to put a note to the driver, that it's not maintained. i.e. more clear current status. IMO, this is enough before merge. > > i just worry that people who don't want to see this change will argue > > that ALSA must get all of its low level drivers into the "as good or > > better than" state first before the merge with the kernel tree occurs > > ... > > I think, that we have sufficient count of good or very good drivers and > debugged framework to start with. More wide audience by other sound > driver developers causes that the code will be continuously improved. Agreed. 2.5 tree is anyway a development version. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
