At Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:25:50 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
Oh, OK, then I must have missed that. Could you repost? And, this *must* go to 2.6.27, or not?
The only patch that needs to go into 2.6.27 is the one titled "alsa: make the CS4270 driver a new-style I2C driver" from me.
So, do you mean that this patch (ASoC: Fix cs4270 error path) doesn't have to go into 2.6.27? Hell, there are still things unclear to me...
This one is missing from Linus' tree.
It's already in 2.6.27-rc8: ec2cd95f340fb07b905839ee219b3846ecf58396 ALSA: make the CS4270 driver a new-style I2C driver
I notice that "ALSA: ASoC: Fix another cs4270 error path" is in Linus' tree, but nothing else is.
Frankly, this series of cs4270 patches have been hard to handle because it was always unclear what the patch is for. The description "It's for 2.6.x" is too ambiguous because it doesn't always mean the purpose but also can mean the based version of the patch. So, a more clear sign would be really helpful for me at the next time...
I can do that, but I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. "This is for 2.6.x", to me at least, means exactly that - that this patch should be applied to the branch for 2.6.27, which is either a release candidate (i.e. 2.6.27-rcX) or a bug fix (i.e. 2.6.27.x), depending on what's next.
If you want me to use different wording, just tell me what I should say.
Just suggest more clearly that your patch is to be merged as soon as possible. For example, "apply this to next 2.6.27-rc8 pull request" or "merge this to the upstream immediately", or so.
In short: "A is for B" is too passive and ambiguous. Rather say simply "Do X".
thanks,
Takashi