On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 10:38:20AM +0800, WangYuli wrote: > > On 2024/9/9 19:17, Conor Dooley wrote: > > [6.6] in the subject and Sasha/Greg/stable list on CC, so I figure it is > > for stable, yeah. Only one of these patches is a "fix", and not really a > > functional one, so I would like to know why this stuff is being > > backported. I think under some definition of "new device IDs and quirks" > > it could be suitable, but it'd be a looser definition than I personally > > agree with! > These submissions will help to ensure a more stable behavior for the RISC-V > devices involved on the Linux-6.6.y kernel, I'll accept that argument for the first patch, but the three that are adding support for audio devices on the platform cannot really be described as making behaviour more stable. I don't hugely object to these being backported, but I would like a more accurate justification for it being done - even if that is just that "we are using this board with 6.6 and would like audio to work, which these 3 simple patches allow it to do". > and as far as I can tell,they > won't introduce any new issues (please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't know. Does this first patch require a driver change for the mmc driver to work correctly? > > Oh, and also, the 4 patches aren't threaded - you should fix that > > I apologize for my ignorance about the correct procedure... > > For instance,for these four commits,I first used 'git format-patch -4' to > create four consecutive .patch files,and then used 'git send-email > --annotate --cover-letter --thread ./*.patch' to send them,but the result > wasn't as expected... > > I'm not sure where the problem lies... I'm not sure, I don't send patches using that method. Usually I output my patches to a directory and call git send-email using the path to that directory. Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
