Am 18.10.2010 08:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
Em 17-10-2010 21:36, Andy Walls escreveu:
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 19:20 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi,
I did a large effort during this weekend to handle the maximum amount of patches, in order to have them
ready for 2.6.37. While there are still some patches marked as NEW at patchwork, and a few pending pull
requests (mostly related to more kABI changes), there are still a list of patches that are marked as
Under review. Except for 4 patches from me, related to Doc (that I'm keeping in this list just to remind
me that I'll need to fix them when I have some time - just some automation stuff at DocBook), all other
patches marked as Under review are stuff that I basically depend on others.
The last time I sent this list, I was about to travel, and I may have missed some comments, or maybe I
may just forgot to update. But I suspect that, for the list bellow, most of them are stuff where the
driver maintainer just forgot at limbo.
> From the list of patches under review, we have:
Waiting for new patch, signed, from Sven Barth<pascaldragon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Apr,25 2010: Problem with cx25840 and Terratec Grabster AV400 http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/94960 Sven Barth<pascaldragon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sven,
We need a "Signed-off-by: " for your submitted patch:
http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Submitting_Patches#Sign_your_work
Note, your patch has an obvious, unintentional white space change for
"if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_JP)", so could you fix that up and send a
new signed off version?
Mauro,
This patch makes obvious sense to me: don't perform audio register
updates on a chip that doesn't have an audio processing block. Sven's
approach was based on my recommended approach, after his initial
discovery on how to get his audio working.
Do we really need an S.O.B for something that appears to be common
sense, and wouldn't have been implemented any other way, even if I had
implemented it?
The original patch were in the middle of a discussion, no proper description,
bad whitespacing, etc. It is better to let the patch author to fix those issues,
as they learn more about how to submit a patch.
Anyway, I agree with you, the patch is obvious, and can proceed without the SOB.
I did the usual CodingStyle fixups, put part of your above comment as the patch
description, together with your ack and moved it forward. One patch less on my queue ;)
Cheers,
Mauro
Eh... I thought I had superseeded it with the patch from 10th July (mail
title: [PATCH] Add support for AUX_PLL on cx2583x chips). It included a
"Signed-of by" from me as well as "Acked by" from Mike and Andy and I
also excluded the whitespace change ^^
Regards,
Sven
--
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
