On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:14:12PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
Shawn Guo wrote:
That doesn't seem to be related to my point? I'm asking you to not reply to an old version of your patch series in order to post a new version of it, just post the new version.
This is the first version of this series.
I think there's a communication breakdown. Shawn, take a look at this:
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2012-February/thread.ht...
Search for "[alsa-devel] [PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on sound/soc/fsl".
You'll see that this email is indented, because it was posted to the mailing list AS A REPLY to "[alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ". That's because it has this line in the message header:
In-Reply-To: 1329979644-31046-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org
This is what Mark is talking about. He wants new patch sets to be posted NOT as replies to other patch sets.
Yes, I did something wrong. But my point is the following patches should belong to one big series. They can not be applied separately.
[PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ [PATCH 2/4] ASoC: imx: move SND_SOC_AC97_BUS selection down to machine driver [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: imx: initialize dma_params burstsize just in imx-ssi [PATCH 4/4] ASoC: imx: separate imx-pcm bits from imx-ssi driver [PATCH 0/4] ASoC: merge imx into fsl [PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on sound/soc/fsl