At Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:18:16 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:09:08 +1100, Damien Zammit wrote:
Here is a patch based on for-next that does the job.
I haven't tested this particular merge on the hardware because I would have to recompile the whole kernel, but it does compile without warnings out of tree, and I haven't changed anything much from my version other than semantics to make it fit with your newer code.
Please find attached the actual patch in case gmail wraps my lines.
Thanks. Through a quick look, no serious problem is seen but could you fix the coding style? Try scripts/checkpatch.pl against your patch, and fix as much as possible.
Some errors like space around '&' can be ignored. Also 80 chars width warnings can be ignored. But most of other errors should be corrected.
Oh and a big missing thing: please give your sign off and a proper changelog text. The sign-off is a line containing like
Signed-off-by: Your Name foo@bar.com
The details about the sign off is found in Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section "Sign your work".
The changelog is one of the most important part in a patch process. Describe what the patch actually does and is provided for which purpose. In your case, which functionality works, what not, etc, are good to mention, too. It should be concise, but should provide enough information.
Takashi