At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:32:54 +0100 (CET), Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:34:19 +0100 (CET), Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:46:50 +0100 (CET), Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Hi all,
continuing the work of extending the HDA codec proc contents, I would like to introduce two new patches:
ALSA: hda - add more NID->Control mapping ALSA: hda - introduce HDA_SUBDEV_AMP_FLAG (ControlAmp in proc)
Patches can be obtained here:
http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=topic/hda-nid
I merged these patches and added patch named:
ALSA: hda - simplify usage of HDA_SUBDEV_AMP_FLAG
.. to my main GIT tree.
The next idea is to modify hda-analyzer to show the codec routes and assigned mixer controls.
snd_hda_add_nids() looks buggy to me. It doesn't increment nids pointer.
Good point. Fixed now.
Also, snd_hda_add_nids() and snd_hda_nid_add() are a bit confusing and inconsistent, IMO.
It is consistent with ctl functions:
snd_hda_ctl_add -> snd_hda_nid_add snd_hda_add_new_ctls -> snd_hda_add_nids
Ah. But both function names look too similar, I'd say, and the relationship above can't be seen obviously from the names.
Any idea to rename functions?
Nor particular in mind, but I'd name like snd_hda_ctl_add_nid() if it's for snd_hda_ctl_add().
Or, use the same name snd_hda_add_nid() and snd_hda_add_nids(), unify the argument order, but make the latter accept array, or so.
Anyway, it'd be really, really helpful if you make a proper pullable branch based on the upstream tree. Right now I can't pull your commits but only do cherry-picks, which is basically stupid when both are using GIT.
I found the possible changes (resolving clashes) during merges very evil, altough I understand your easy work scheme.
Right. IOW, the commits that have been already published for the public tree shouldn't be rebased. The rebasing is the most evil thing for the published commits.
Rebasing doesn't matter for local commits, of course. Also, it's also more or less OK for some test trees / branches. But, never rebase if a branch gets merged.
Also, I don't like the missing lines in comments (Signed-off-by etc.) for merged patches for all involved people. It makes more difficult to track the patch flow.
Well, the meta info has to be set properly *before* merge. So, the only question is whether a developed branch is ready for merging or not...
Unfortunately, I'm not talking about the meta-info. The patch delivery should be in the patch comment itself according to the SubmittingPatches document. For example:
commit 761c9d45d14e0afa3c0b8eb84b4075602e50533b Author: Olof Johansson olof@lixom.net Date: Thu Dec 10 11:15:55 2009 -0600
ASoC: Fix build of OMAP sound drivers .... Reported-by: Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> Acked-by: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>Where's your Signed-off-by: line? You rely on the SCM system to obtain this information from the 'Merge' commit. I don't think that it's good.
This is fully normal. Do you see sign-off in each pull by Linus? Many trees with sub-trees or sub-projects are done in that way. See x86 tree, for example.
thanks,
Takashi