On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:44:15AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:17:58AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:39:05AM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
That's not what Mark is talking about. You somehow posted patch 0/6 as a reply to the *previous* patchset, so the two patchsets were merged into one email thread.
Sorry, you and Mark are not listening to Shawn. Even worse, you're telling Shawn that what he's trying to explain to you is not the point when it is actually the whole point.
The "[PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on sound/soc/fsl" was posted as a follow-up to "[PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ".
So, the "*previous* patchset" _was_ "[PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ" and not some other random patch set. That is a fundamental fact, which can't be argued. Anyone can verify it, and it can be verified by checking the email headers.
No, I get that it's a new version of the same patch set
I know it's confusing. But "[PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on sound/soc/fsl" is not a new version of the series "[PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ". Instead, it's a follow-up series which depends on previously posted patches.
Anyway, I will stop doing that to confuse people.
Regards, Shawn
rather than a totally unrelated patch set that was followed up to - I'd still rather it weren't posted like that as the threading ends up being less helpful than is desirable.