Colin Cross wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mark Brown wrote: > >> > >> Honestly if you're starting out here it's probably easier to backport > >> current ASoC into 2.6.36 > >> > > Colin, Erik, do you have any objections to pulling in the new ASoC? > > We will not be pulling ASoC into the linux-tegra tree. linux-tegra > should only be patches that are required for Tegra support. We have > pulled in a few other drivers that are necessary for Harmony and > Ventana to ease testing, but we try to avoid that as much as possible. > It sounds like you need your own tree, and you can periodically merge > linux-tegra-2.6.36 into it, as well as whatever other patches you need > (like backporting ASoC). We do the same with our android-tegra-2.6.36 > tree. OK. I certainly could make my own tree. However, I was originally tasked with getting the Tegra ASoC driver in the linux-tegra-2.6.36. Making my own tree wouldn't achieve that. So, I guess the options are to a) Put a driver into linux-tegra-2.6.36 that uses the existing ASoC API there, and in parallel fix it up further and also submit it upstream to mainline. Perhaps continue applying all changes separate to both linux-tegra and mainline. b) Simply ignore linux-tegra-2.6.36 altogether. The latter may be an acceptable option now that ChromeOS is starting to look at kernels more recent than 2.6.36, so the content of 2.6.36 isn't relevant to reducing the number of patches ChromeOS carries. I think Olof already indicated in a separate thread that going straight upstream would be fine for him; if we need, I'm sure he can pull whatever ASoC core changes are required into the ChromeOS 2.6.37 or later branches as required to use/backport a Tegra ASoC driver from mainline. -- nvpublic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
