[alsa-devel] ASoC: OMAP/TI upstream route
Now that I'm back working full time on ASoC I'm going to manage the upstream branch for the OMAP platform and TI codecs. Mark will continue to manage the upstream for all other codecs, platforms and core.
As usual, please CC both Mark and I on new ASoC patches. The OMAP upstream branch tracks Takashi's topic/asoc branch and is here :-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lrg/asoc-2.6.git #for-2.6.35
Thanks
Liam
Hi
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:56:43 +0100 Liam Girdwood lrg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
Now that I'm back working full time on ASoC I'm going to manage the upstream branch for the OMAP platform and TI codecs. Mark will continue to manage the upstream for all other codecs, platforms and core.
As usual, please CC both Mark and I on new ASoC patches. The OMAP upstream branch tracks Takashi's topic/asoc branch and is here :-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lrg/asoc-2.6.git #for-2.6.35
To clarify: is this new tree for handling possible cross tree issues with current and future ASoC OMAPs?
I don't see a need for own tree for plain sound/soc/omap/ patches but this could makes sense for patches that touch also arch/arm/ (we have had a few cases) or sounc/soc/codec/ (if we ever have such a need?).
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 19:22 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
Hi
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:56:43 +0100 Liam Girdwood lrg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
Now that I'm back working full time on ASoC I'm going to manage the upstream branch for the OMAP platform and TI codecs. Mark will continue to manage the upstream for all other codecs, platforms and core.
As usual, please CC both Mark and I on new ASoC patches. The OMAP upstream branch tracks Takashi's topic/asoc branch and is here :-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lrg/asoc-2.6.git #for-2.6.35
To clarify: is this new tree for handling possible cross tree issues with current and future ASoC OMAPs?
I don't see a need for own tree for plain sound/soc/omap/ patches but this could makes sense for patches that touch also arch/arm/ (we have had a few cases) or sounc/soc/codec/ (if we ever have such a need?).
This is not a cross tree merge branch or OMAP patch dumping area.
Everything is just carrying on as before except the upstream management effort is being divided between Mark and I. i.e. I'll manage the TI/OMAP based patches, Mark will manage the rest.
Patch submitters should not notice any difference as both trees are based on Takashi's ASoC branch and are regularly kept up to date.
Any patches that are likely to cause merge pain will still go via the best route (as the currently do now) and with the appropriate Ack's.
Liam
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:13:47 +0100 Liam Girdwood lrg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
I don't see a need for own tree for plain sound/soc/omap/ patches but this could makes sense for patches that touch also arch/arm/ (we have had a few cases) or sounc/soc/codec/ (if we ever have such a need?).
This is not a cross tree merge branch or OMAP patch dumping area.
Everything is just carrying on as before except the upstream management effort is being divided between Mark and I. i.e. I'll manage the TI/OMAP based patches, Mark will manage the rest.
Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Makes sense to me. I was kind of fearing that are we creating some patch dumping area :-)
Hi,
On Monday 26 April 2010 20:13:47 ext Liam Girdwood wrote:
Everything is just carrying on as before except the upstream management effort is being divided between Mark and I. i.e. I'll manage the TI/OMAP based patches, Mark will manage the rest.
I see, it make sense. Are we continuing the practice that in case of OMAP (McBSP) patches Jarkko or/and I have to ack it in order to be accepted? I'm also the maintainer for the twl4030 ASoC codec driver (see MAINTAINERS file)...
Patch submitters should not notice any difference as both trees are based on Takashi's ASoC branch and are regularly kept up to date.
Just to clarify it: You and Mark will send pull request to Takashi, or is it going to be You -> Mark -> Takashi route?
Thanks, Péter
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:26 +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 26 April 2010 20:13:47 ext Liam Girdwood wrote:
Everything is just carrying on as before except the upstream management effort is being divided between Mark and I. i.e. I'll manage the TI/OMAP based patches, Mark will manage the rest.
I see, it make sense. Are we continuing the practice that in case of OMAP (McBSP) patches Jarkko or/and I have to ack it in order to be accepted? I'm also the maintainer for the twl4030 ASoC codec driver (see MAINTAINERS file)...
Yes, nothing has changed here. :)
Patch submitters should not notice any difference as both trees are based on Takashi's ASoC branch and are regularly kept up to date.
Just to clarify it: You and Mark will send pull request to Takashi,
yes
or is it going to be You -> Mark -> Takashi route?
and yes. Depending on workload, any merge issues, cross tree patches etc.
Liam
participants (3)
-
Jarkko Nikula -
Liam Girdwood -
Peter Ujfalusi