On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:30:19AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:34:39AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
The last set of DPCMish patches was reported to work so should be a fairly small refactoring away from being OK - the main thing is to create back end DAIs for the physical links and then put the widgets that manage the enable of the S/PDIF and I2S interfaces between the FE and BE DAIs instead of directly connecting them to widgets on the CODEC.
ROTFL. You're now telling JF to do exactly what I did in my last patch. Your two-faced-ness is utterly astounding.
"widgets that manage the enable of the S/PDIF and I2S interfaces between the FE and BE DAIs" is exactly what I did and you told me that was wrong. Make up your fscking mind.
No, this is not the case. The major problem with your last set of patches was that they did not create any back end DAIs, instead they created purely DAPM routes from the single traditional DAI out to widgets in the CODEC. What I'm asking Jean-Francois to do above is create and use back end DAIs.
Please let me also remind you that confrontational behaviour such as the ad hominem remarks above is not at all constructive or helpful, please keep the discussion civil.
Let me remind you that I had a definition of what a front end and a back end DAI was from Liam, and your definition is at odds with that.
I am still of the opinion that you don't know what you're talking about most of the time, and nothing has changed in that regard, and I still regard you as a completely obstructive and unhelpful person.
And I think you're just wrong on what you've said above. But... I've basically given up any hope of progressing that code after months of pissing around with your obstructive attitude, and I've elected (and others) to maintain it completely out of mainline for the forseeable future - hopefully until you get replaced by someone who can be more assistive and helpful.