From ultra-devel-owner@ultra.jcu.cz  Mon Feb 16 14:00:54 1998
Received: from entry.jcu.cz (perex@entry.jcu.cz [160.217.1.111])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA29223;
	Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:00:48 +0100
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:00:48 +0100 (MET)
From: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@jcu.cz>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Thomas Sailer <sailer@ife.ee.ethz.ch>, ultra-devel@ultra.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: The Ultra Sound Driver
In-Reply-To: <m0y4Cwg-0005FsC@lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980216134428.4789E-100000@entry.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: ultra-devel@ultra.jcu.cz
Sender: ultra-devel-owner@ultra.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Alan Cox wrote:

> > 	I started new project for the Linux. Code name is 'The Ultra Sound
> > Driver'. Primary goals are:
> 
> Please talk to Thomas Sailer. He's also already started ;)

OK. I mailed message to Thomas Sailer <sailer@ife.ee.ethz.ch> (I don't
know if this person is right) with request of current status of his
project.

> > 2) Create new Ultra API which breaks most of limitations of current OSS API.
> 
> The OSS API has to remain supported, even if as Thomas proposed some of it is an
> optional module.
> 
> > 1) Anyone knows about main reasons why OSS/Lite must be only one sound
> >    driver/API for Linux? (I hope that this question turn on some
> >    discussions about current OSS/Lite API - maybe we can move to ultra
> >    mailing lists).
> 
> For the same reason we dont have 500 different IDE drivers for each drive
> in the kernel. After 2.2 I anticipate that a lot of people are going to
> effectively nuke much of the OSS/lite code.

OK. I emulate OSS/Lite mixer & pcm interface, too. But main MIXER API is
for example totaly extended and different. My PCM is really full duplex
(you can open it with two open() calls by two different applications).

In previous project I emulated all OSS/Lite stuff include sequencer
(pretty good shit).

> > 2) Anyone have good reason why sound driver can't exist only as group
> >    of kernel modules? I think that it's now time for modularized kernel.
> 
> You sometimes want the sound compiled in, and there are still a few
> fringe cases where stuff isnt tidily managed otherwise (one remaining
> bug is if you have a MAD16 or equivalent the module ought to activate
> the IDE ports and register the ide interface). Sound cards also interact
> in interesting (but not problematic) ways with the joystick and CDROM
> drivers. 

IDE - not problem. We can load ide module with another major # after sound
modules and loader can request from sound driver about IDE port
parameters (port/IRQ). I didn't assume that IDE port on soundcard will be
used for booting, so this method is sufficient.

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@jcu.cz>
Academic Computer Centre, University of South Bohemia
Branisovska 31, C. Budejovice, CZ-370 05 Czech Republic


