On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 13:58, Marc Dietrich marvin24@gmx.de wrote:
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2011, 13:05:50 schrieb Leon Romanovsky:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:47, Marc Dietrich marvin24@gmx.de wrote:
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2011, 08:45:39 schrieb Leon Romanovsky:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 23:00, Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com wrote:
Leon Romanovsky wrote at Monday, December 19, 2011 12:52 PM:
Before, I'm going to start pushing other parts of the audio, how do I need to handle cross-tree patches ? For example I'll need to update NVEC (staging tree) and platform_device (tegra and ASoC) On which tree do I base my patches?
If you have updates to other files beside the audio stuff (nvec or board stuff), you need to CC the relevant maintainers (see scripts/get_maintainer.pl).
Different trees have different file versions, this is why i'm asking "on which tree do I base my patches?"
ok, I think patches for upstream should be based on the relevant subsystem trees (e.g. sound (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git), board (arm-soc git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git) and nvec ( git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git). One may correct me where I'm wrong.
And how will you ensure that the proposed patches will compile well? For example, Mark applied the tegra_alc5632.c patch into ASoC tree, but in tegra tree this file still doesn't exist, so any my attempt to link board-paz00.c (tegra tree) with tegra_alc5632. will lead to compile failures.
I know it is hard to test changes this way, but that's a common problem. I often use linux-next to create and test the patches and rebase them to the relevant subsystem trees before submitting. Maybe there is a better solution for it...
Marc