On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:37:34PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >>> Also, we need to reconsider which of you change is really needed >>> since the current problem of the PCM will be solved in the PCM >>> core side soon later without the change of the driver side. >> >> AFAICT all the currently posted patches are needed since they're only >> doing the refactoring of the code required to support AC97. They're >> only related to the fixes in that John's board doesn't have I2S but >> since the DMA is shared the fixes that John develops while making AC97 >> work will also fix I2S. > > I purposely sent in refactoring changes that made no functional > changes to the code. > > I have been caught in this mess before. This isn't a simple case of > resolving conflicts. What happens is that git isn't smart enough to > track changes across a refactor. That results in big conflicts > covering most of the contents of the files involved. The conflicts in Thinking about this for a couple minutes, what happens is the three way merge becomes a four or more way merge depending on how many new files were created in the the refactor. Git doesn't have an n-way merge tool so it just kicks the entire files out as conflicts. > the refactor then cascade into all of the other patches. > > If we put the refactor in front of the fixes git will get everything right. > > Why are people going to complain about patches to a driver marked > broken? You can't even compile it without editing the Kconfig. > > >> > > > > -- > Jon Smirl > jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx > -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
