[alsa-devel] More HDA NID / control / proc related changes
perex at perex.cz
Mon Dec 14 15:32:54 CET 2009
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:34:19 +0100 (CET),
> Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>> At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:46:50 +0100 (CET),
>>> Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> continuing the work of extending the HDA codec proc contents, I would
>>>>> like to introduce two new patches:
>>>>> ALSA: hda - add more NID->Control mapping
>>>>> ALSA: hda - introduce HDA_SUBDEV_AMP_FLAG (ControlAmp in proc)
>>>>> Patches can be obtained here:
>>>> I merged these patches and added patch named:
>>>> ALSA: hda - simplify usage of HDA_SUBDEV_AMP_FLAG
>>>> .. to my main GIT tree.
>>>> The next idea is to modify hda-analyzer to show the codec routes and
>>>> assigned mixer controls.
>>> snd_hda_add_nids() looks buggy to me. It doesn't increment nids
>> Good point. Fixed now.
>>> Also, snd_hda_add_nids() and snd_hda_nid_add() are a bit confusing and
>>> inconsistent, IMO.
>> It is consistent with ctl functions:
>> snd_hda_ctl_add -> snd_hda_nid_add
>> snd_hda_add_new_ctls -> snd_hda_add_nids
> Ah. But both function names look too similar, I'd say, and the
> relationship above can't be seen obviously from the names.
Any idea to rename functions?
>>> Anyway, it'd be really, really helpful if you make a proper pullable
>>> branch based on the upstream tree. Right now I can't pull your
>>> commits but only do cherry-picks, which is basically stupid when both
>>> are using GIT.
>> I found the possible changes (resolving clashes) during merges very evil,
>> altough I understand your easy work scheme.
> Right. IOW, the commits that have been already published for the
> public tree shouldn't be rebased. The rebasing is the most evil thing
> for the published commits.
> Rebasing doesn't matter for local commits, of course. Also, it's also
> more or less OK for some test trees / branches. But, never rebase if
> a branch gets merged.
>> Also, I don't like the missing
>> lines in comments (Signed-off-by etc.) for merged patches for all involved
>> people. It makes more difficult to track the patch flow.
> Well, the meta info has to be set properly *before* merge. So, the
> only question is whether a developed branch is ready for merging or
Unfortunately, I'm not talking about the meta-info. The patch delivery
should be in the patch comment itself according to the SubmittingPatches
document. For example:
Author: Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>
Date: Thu Dec 10 11:15:55 2009 -0600
ASoC: Fix build of OMAP sound drivers
Reported-by: Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar at ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>
Acked-by: Liam Girdwood <lrg at slimlogic.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Where's your Signed-off-by: line? You rely on the SCM system to obtain
this information from the 'Merge' commit. I don't think that it's good.
Even if you do rebasing, you can have a clean repository. Just ommit git
fancy merging and you'll see that you can work with patches in same way as
in CVS or other "old" SCMs. I think that ONLY stable "fixed" commits
should be in the Linus's tree and our patches should be commited as
cleanly as possible with whole relevant information.
It's also about accepting the 'git pull' requests. If we accept the 'git
format-patch' output via e-mail only , we can add appropriate information
to the patch comment and the patches are valid without any requirement to
know the "patch base" in the GIT repository.
The same rule should be applied to local branches - when merging, the
contents should be cherry picked.
> If your topic/hda-nid branch isn't ready for merging, I don't care
> right now :)
It is ready (if you accept current function names).
Jaroslav Kysela <perex at perex.cz>
Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer
ALSA Project, Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Alsa-devel