> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie at kernel.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Eric Anholt > Cc: Alex Deucher; alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; Liam Girdwood; Maling list - > DRI developers; rajeev kumar; amd-gfx list; Mukunda, Vijendar; Deucher, > Alexander; perex at perex.cz > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] Add ASoC support for AMD Stoney APUs > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:49:02AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> writes: > > > > You need to get someone from the DRM side to pay attention to the > second > > > patch and you need to stop resending the first patch since as has been > > > pointed out a few times now you need to stop sending the first patch > > > which is already in Linus' tree. > > > Alex *is* from the DRM side and has reviewed that patch. > > *sigh* Right, OK in that case it would have been really helpful to see > either some mention of this either in text or via a pull request (which > would show the patch having been applied). It's difficult to keep track > of all the different people who might be DRM maintainers especially when > there's process things like the resend of the patch from Linus' tree > going on. I sent one patch in the v2 patch set that had already gone upstream because I didn't know that it had landed in Linus' tree yet. I had thought it had just landed in the audio tree. I apologize for that. On the v3 cover page, I mentioned that v3 was a resend of the patches that had not been applied to any tree yet; I did not resend any patches that were already applied. I believe all the previous comments were addressed. Now that we've clarified that, are there an outstanding objections to these patches? The patches touch both drm and audio. My preference would be to take them through the drm tree, but I'm happy to have them go through the audio tree if you prefer. Thanks, Alex
