On Mon, 11 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 11 May 2009 22:09:26 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Em Sat, 9 May 2009 16:49:31 -0500 (CDT) > > Mike Isely <isely@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > > > Mauro: > > > > > > Please pull from http://linuxtv.org/hg/~mcisely/pvrusb2-dev for various > > > pvrusb2 changesets. Several have to do with IR as previously discussed > > > with Jean Delvare. He's waiting for these changes. Other stuff is more > > > of a miscellaneous / cleanup nature. > > Hmm... this one failed when importing on -git: > > Changeset: 11749 > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx> > Commiter: Mike Isely <isely@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri May 01 22:36:33 2009 -0500 > Subject: pvrusb2: remove driver_data direct access of struct device > > In the near future, the driver core is going to not allow direct access > to the driver_data pointer in struct device. Instead, the functions > dev_get_drvdata() and dev_set_drvdata() should be used. These functions > have been around since the beginning, so are backwards compatible with > all older kernel versions. > > Priority: normal > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > $ patch -p1 -i 11749.patch > patching file drivers/media/video/pvrusb2/pvrusb2-sysfs.c > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] > > It seems that you've got a Greg's patch, removed the parts that touch on other > files, applied on your tree and asked me to merge it. Please, never do it, > since this will cause merge problems when exporting the patches to git. Next > time, just reply with an acked-by, and let Patchwork to add your ack on the > original patch. > I in fact did what you are asking for here (i.e. wait for it to show up on its own) before for another change that got rid of usb_settoggle(). It took a LONG time - WEEKS - for that fix to get back into v4l-dvb via the mechanism you just described. And this had the effect of breaking the v4l-dvb repository for a period of time when the kernel mainline then unpublished the usb_settoggle() function. I do NOT like to see that happen. That caused me to decide not to rely on what you are now telling me to do. I also disagree with this for another reason. What happens if, say, Greg generates a patch that I need before I can proceed with other changes? Do I just sit around and wait for it to trickle back before I can continue? That seems wrong. In addition in the past when there have been pvrusb2 changes generated from upstream you have asked if I was planning on pulling them in myself - which I've done in the past. It seems wrong on its face to tell me that I can't go get a patch that affects my driver. AND... In the case of the "remove usb_settoggle()" patch, I *DID* in fact add my acked-by to that patch. Greg dutifully took note of this and ensured it was part of the git patch. However when it got back into v4l-dvb, the acked-by attribution was missing. I complained about this to you and your response was that this was a fault of the pathway / mechanism and that I should basically accept this. So now you're telling me to do this anyway? Whatever. -Mike -- Mike Isely isely @ isely (dot) net PGP: 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
