Re: [OT] ALSA userspace API complexity

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:07:02 +0100 (CET),
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >
> >>> Well, the ALSA primary goal is to be the complete HAL not hidding the
> >>> extra hardware capabilities to applications. So API might look a bit
> >>> complicated for the first glance, but the ALSA interface code for simple
> >>> applications is not so big, isn't?
> >>
> >> Sorry Jaroslav byt this not unix way.
> >> Wny applications myst know anything about hardware layer ?
> >> In unix way all this details are rolled on kernel layer.
> >
> > It means that you are saying that kernel should be bigger and bigger.
> > Please, see the graphics APIs. Why we have X servers in user space (and
> > only some supporting code is in the kernel) then? It's because if we
> > would move everything into kernel it will be even more bloated. The kernel
> > should do really the basic things like direct hardware access, DMA
> > transfer etc.
> 
> List all neccessary feactures and abstract them. Below this layer you 
> can plug to this all device drivers. Where is the problem ?
> Cureent way moves some importand details like mixing to user space 
> library.
> All abstraction are NOW coded but some parts of this abstraction are on 
> library level and you are wrong because this still ONE abstraction
> (not multiple/growing).
> Moving some patrs of this abstraction to user space level DISSALLOW secure 
> manage because you do not have *single point of entry to this layer*. Try
> plug library abstraction to SELinux layer. Can you do this with ALSA way ?

I don't understand this.  The alsa-lib doesn't skip the h/w access.
It still accesses the device file as usual, open/close/ioctls.  If the
h/w to do softmix is restricted, you can't use it, too.
Or, am I missing something else?


> If you have sound device with hardware mixer(s) ALSA now work 
> transparently. 
> If you have sound device without this soft mixing is moved to user space 
> .. but  applications do not need know about this even now because all
> neccessary details are handled on library level. Is it ?
> So question is: why the hell *ALL* mixing details are not moved to kernel 
> space to SIMPLE and NOT GROWING abstraction ?

Because many people believe that the softmix in the kernel space is
evil.  The discussion aboult this could be a long thread.


(snip)
> In case ALSA now questions are very basic:
> 
> - all hardware mixers are very simillar with very izomorphic interface
>    (read this as: this can be very easy abstracted) and we have only one
>    other case with soft mixing when this hardwware must be emulated in
>    software .. so all this details can be rolled to one leyer on kernel
>    level.
>    So: why all mixing details are not in kernel space ?

The problem is not the interface but the implementation.

> - KNOWN FACT is OSS provides simpler API for user space for handle
>    usual cases.

Please define "usual cases".

>    Why Linux can't provide only OSS API abstraction for user space
>    application ? And/or why ALSA developers want to replace this by
>    mostly bloated and pourly documented ALSA user space API ?

Because OSS API doesn't cover many things.  For example, 

- PCM with non-interleaved formats
- PCM with 3-bytes-packed 24bit formats

These functions are popluar on many sound devices.

In addition, imagine how you would implement the following:

- Combination of multiple devices
- Split of channels to concurrent accesses
- Handling of floating pointer samples
- Post/pre-effects (like chorus/reverb)

Forcing OSS API means to force to process the all things above in
the kernel.  I guess many people would disagree with it.


Takashi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/