On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 05:00:28PM +0200, Ricard Wanderlof wrote:
Sorry for the repost, I relized I stupidly got Greg's email adress wrong
first time around.
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:00:14PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 09:35:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:22:13AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > > > > If the DAI format setup fails, there is no valid communication format
> > > > > between CPU and CODEC, so fail card instantiation, rather than
> > > continue
> > > > > with a card that will most likely not function properly.
> >
> > > > This is another one where if nobody noticed a problem already and things
> > > > just happened to be working this might break things, it's vanishingly
> > > > unlikely to fix anything that was broken.
> >
> > > Same as the other patch: this patch suggests it fixes a real bug, and if
> > > this patch is broken let's fix it.
> >
> > If anyone ran into this on the older kernel and fixed or worked
> > around it locally there's a reasonable chance this will then
> > break what they're doing. The patch itself is perfectly fine but
(Sorry about the mangled subject line, I'd accidentally deleted the
original message from my inbox.)
I'm a bit bewildered here. As the author of the original patch I'm of
course biased, and I can certainly understand the patch being dropped from
existing release branches, since as Mark correctly states, it does not fix
any broken behavior and might even break things that happen to work by
chance.
But is this being dropped from the master branch as well? To me it makes
the kernel behave in an inconsistent way, first reporting a failure to
instantiate a specific sound card in the kernel log, but then seemingly
bringing it up anyway.
Hi Richard,
This patch is only dropped from the stable branches, it still remains in
the mainline branch.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
