drop snd_ from DRIVER_MODULEs...

[Alexander Leidinger]

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?

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
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
to work.