2009-10-17 21:17:27

by Stas Sergeev

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [patch][rfc] depend pcspkr on CONFIG_EMBEDDED

Hello.

As most of the problems with snd-pcsp
are now settled and the major distros
are starting to unblacklist it and use
instead of pcspkr:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539767
I'd like to do that sneaky thing.
The major argument for keeping pcspkr
I've heard, was that it doesn't require
the entire ALSA stack, and in this
case I think it is usefull only with
CONFIG_EMBEDDED. Right now it is a common
situation when the both modules are
built, and whichever gets loaded first,
works.
So can something like the attached
patch be applied?

---
Depend pcspkr on CONFIG_EMBEDDED to reduce
the chances of both the pcspkr and snd-pcsp
being built together. pcspkr is good only
by not requiring ALSA; apart from that,
snd-pcsp does everything.

Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>


Attachments:
pcspkr_dep.diff (711.00 B)

2009-10-18 08:24:51

by Dmitry Torokhov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [patch][rfc] depend pcspkr on CONFIG_EMBEDDED

Hi Stas,

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 01:22:27AM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As most of the problems with snd-pcsp
> are now settled and the major distros
> are starting to unblacklist it and use
> instead of pcspkr:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539767
> I'd like to do that sneaky thing.
> The major argument for keeping pcspkr
> I've heard, was that it doesn't require
> the entire ALSA stack, and in this
> case I think it is usefull only with
> CONFIG_EMBEDDED. Right now it is a common
> situation when the both modules are
> built, and whichever gets loaded first,
> works.
> So can something like the attached
> patch be applied?

I think it is up to destribution to select the driver they want to use
and blacklist the one they don't want. No need to change the kernel.

--
Dmitry