Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:08:15 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testing: emu10kx driver for Creative sound cards Message-ID: <4473336F.1030900@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <867j4clqaj.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <20060520141209.A2285@free.home.local> <86fyj1kju5.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060523171238.6392afdb@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <867j4clqaj.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes: > >>Quoting des@des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) (Tue, 23 May 2006 14:26:58 +0200): >> >>>Yuriy Tsibizov <Yuriy.Tsibizov@gfk.ru> writes: >>> >>>>2. Complete mixer support. Some controls that can't fit into OSS >>>>mixer are available as sysctl under debug.emu10kxX. >>> >>>That is not the correct place for it. Please use the device's sysctl >>>context (obtained with device_get_sysctl_ctx()) >> >>This was based upon a suggestion by me. We want to get rid of most >>sound related syscalls (at least those which belong into the realm of >>the user, and not into the realm of the administrator). Until we have >>an application and an interface, we have to life with the sysctls, but >>to let the users know that this is not an interface but a temporary >>workaround, it's put into the debug MIB. I hope we will not ship >>7.0-RELEASE with any such sysctl (any help appreciated). > > > Regardless, device-specific sysctl knobs belong in the individual > device's sysctl context, which automatically places them in the > correct location in the dev tree and automatically destroys them when > the device is destroyed. Please do not create further precedent for > breaking this rule, no matter how good your intentions. > > DES The problem is that Alexander wants these sysctls to only be temporary. Recall that big thread from a month or two ago about treating sysctls as an API, and how there was heavy disagreement over how to define "stable" sysctls that apps could depend on? If a temporary set of sysctls get put under the dev tree, then it risks becoming permanent, which is not what Alexander wants. So, either we need to decide what parts of the sysctl to define as stable, like I asked for in the previous thread, or we need to pretend that it's not a problem that we should address, and let you and Alexander continue to argue over the 'correct place'. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4473336F.1030900>