On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:46:50 +0100 (CET), > Jaroslav Kysela wrote: >> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> continuing the work of extending the HDA codec proc contents, I would >>> like to introduce two new patches: >>> >>> ALSA: hda - add more NID->Control mapping >>> ALSA: hda - introduce HDA_SUBDEV_AMP_FLAG (ControlAmp in proc) >>> >>> Patches can be obtained here: >>> >>> http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=topic/hda-nid >> >> I merged these patches and added patch named: >> >> ALSA: hda - simplify usage of HDA_SUBDEV_AMP_FLAG >> >> .. to my main GIT tree. >> >> The next idea is to modify hda-analyzer to show the codec routes and >> assigned mixer controls. > > snd_hda_add_nids() looks buggy to me. It doesn't increment nids > pointer. Good point. Fixed now. > Also, snd_hda_add_nids() and snd_hda_nid_add() are a bit confusing and > inconsistent, IMO. It is consistent with ctl functions: snd_hda_ctl_add -> snd_hda_nid_add snd_hda_add_new_ctls -> snd_hda_add_nids > Anyway, it'd be really, really helpful if you make a proper pullable > branch based on the upstream tree. Right now I can't pull your > commits but only do cherry-picks, which is basically stupid when both > are using GIT. I found the possible changes (resolving clashes) during merges very evil, altough I understand your easy work scheme. Also, I don't like the missing lines in comments (Signed-off-by etc.) for merged patches for all involved people. It makes more difficult to track the patch flow. My topic/hda-nid branch is now based on your master tree. Jaroslav ----- Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxxx> Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer ALSA Project, Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
