On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Mark Brown broonie@sirena.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:37:34PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Also, we need to reconsider which of you change is really needed since the current problem of the PCM will be solved in the PCM core side soon later without the change of the driver side.
AFAICT all the currently posted patches are needed since they're only doing the refactoring of the code required to support AC97. They're only related to the fixes in that John's board doesn't have I2S but since the DMA is shared the fixes that John develops while making AC97 work will also fix I2S.
I purposely sent in refactoring changes that made no functional changes to the code.
I have been caught in this mess before. This isn't a simple case of resolving conflicts. What happens is that git isn't smart enough to track changes across a refactor. That results in big conflicts covering most of the contents of the files involved. The conflicts in
Thinking about this for a couple minutes, what happens is the three way merge becomes a four or more way merge depending on how many new files were created in the the refactor. Git doesn't have an n-way merge tool so it just kicks the entire files out as conflicts.
the refactor then cascade into all of the other patches.
If we put the refactor in front of the fixes git will get everything right.
Why are people going to complain about patches to a driver marked broken? You can't even compile it without editing the Kconfig.
-- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com