drop snd_ from DRIVER_MODULEs...
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Wed Apr 19 09:01:33 UTC 2006
Quoting John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j at resnet.uoregon.edu> (from Wed, 19
Apr 2006 01:27:17 -0700):
> Alexander Leidinger wrote this message on Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:49 +0200:
>> What are the benefits of this patch? Why should we commit it? What's
>> wrong with the current way of naming? How is this patch an improvement?
>> I don't object to the patch (haven't tested it), but what are the benefits?
> The benifits are more consistant naming of our modules... Only three
> ethernet modules have if_ in front, and the rest are the raw device
> names.. It also means that the module names matches more closely to
If no problem shows up (see below), this reason is good enough for me
to not object to such a change.
> the driver that implemented by them (though this is a bit complicated
> w/ the fact that pcm is the real driver behind these modules and pcm
> isn't it's own device node)... It also makes my driver/module dependancy
Do you suggest to make pcm it's own device node, and if you do, what
are the benefits/...?
> script do the correct thing wrt to gusc and sbc.. (The graph can be
> seen at: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~jmg/driver.pdf )... With out this
> change gusc and sbc would be their own sub-graphs not connected to
> anything besides their children...
And we can't change gusc and sbc in a way to make your script work as
intended? I don't suggest doing this instead of your proposal, I just
want to know what options we have.
> Though I do realize that sound module names are special since they
> can (and do) end in numbers which none of our other drivers do...
Is this a problem? And if yes, why is this not a problem with the
current snd_ prefix?
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Slang is language that takes off its coat, spits on its hands, and goes
More information about the freebsd-multimedia