Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:34:29 +0100
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Martitz <thomas47_at_arcor.de> wrote:
> I'd propose this: battery bench doesn't use the plugin buffer at all, but
> steals his 512bytes from the main ram. So, stop playback -> start battery
> bench -> start playback again. There's also other plugins doing this.
I don't like this idea. This would mean:
- execute code from outside a .text area. While this is possible I
quite dislike the idea. Separating between code and data is something
CPU manufacturers are trying to add (this no-execute thingy comes into
my mind) to improve security. And for the mentioned plugins stealing
the audio buffer: those plugins don't put their own code there but use
it for buffering purposes (like doom putting the wad data in the audio
buffer). Having plugins executing from outside the plugin buffer gives
a bad taste.
- stopping playback just for starting a plugin that didn't require
that before? This simply sounds stupid to me as its quite a step
Also, I don't like settings being a plugin -- Rockbox core should be
self-contained, which implies that it shouldn't rely on any extra
files. For the codecs this is not possible but all other parts should
avoid this as much as possible. All functionality that currently is a
plugin (properties and credits IIRC) isn't needed to use Rockbox.
Changing settings is something I consider core functionality.
Received on 2008-10-28