Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:20:15 -0700 > Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:55:06 -0700 >> > Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:16:32 +0000 >> >> > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:03:41AM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > I based those patches on the latest linux-davinci git tree, >> >> >> > which has the function. >> >> >> >> >> >> Do not submit patches for mainline which are not based on >> >> >> mainline trees. Code which relies on out of tree changes needs >> >> >> to wait for those out of tree changes to be merged before >> >> >> submitting to mainline. >> >> > >> >> > I did not know that these changes were not in mainline yet. I was >> >> > told that all davinci ASoC code changes were to be submitted only >> >> > to ALSA, and then were imported back into the davinci git tree. >> >> > Apparently this is not quite like that anymore. >> >> > >> >> > Kevin, what is the new rule to submit davinci ASoC patches? >> >> > >> >> >> >> The DaVinci ASoC code is indeed in mainline, but not all of the >> >> DaVinci core (in this case the pin mux) is yet in mainline. I >> >> will be pushing it during the next merge window. >> > >> > That doesn't really answer my question. >> > >> > I can see that David Brownell pushed a patch to the davinci tree >> > directly modifying sound/soc/davinci/davinci-evm.c which IS in >> > mainline. Does this means that as of now all ASoC patches should be >> > sent first to the Davinci list, and then you will push those to the >> > mainline kernel? >> > >> >> No ASoc patches should be generated against an ASoC tree and submitted >> to alsa-devel, and CC davinci list. >> >> This means that the until the DaVinci core is in mainline, DaVinci >> git will have slightly different looking ASoC drivers, but those >> changes will be minimal. > > Ok, so the patch affecting sound/soc/davinci/davinci-evm.c SHOULD have > been submitted to ALSA first. Yes, but it should've been a patch against an ASoC tree, not against DaVinci git which may contain things not (yet) in the ASoC tree. > It is not easy following you guys. You say something and then do the > opposite. Heh, sorry. Do as I do, not as I say. ;) Kevin _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
