[alsa-devel] ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450
Kukjin,
Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440 and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.
It seems to have missed one reference to MACH_SMDK6450 in sound/soc/samsung/Kconfig (an optional dependency of SND_SOC_SMDK_WM8580_PCM). Is the oneliner to remove that optional dependency queued somewhere?
Paul Bolle
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440 and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.
This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to maintainers.
On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440 and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.
Yeah, I missed the removing when I created the patch. Paul, thanks for your pointing out and I'm resending the updated patch.
This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to maintainers.
Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
Thanks, Kukjin
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to maintainers.
Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up in a completely different place to my personal mail.
Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to maintainers.
Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up in a completely different place to my personal mail.
Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time ;-)
And you have any comments or ack on the series, please kindly let me know.
Thanks, Kukjin
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to maintainers.
Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up in a completely different place to my personal mail.
Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time ;-)
Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all his work with.
I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us wouldn't have to keep track of this. :(
-Olof
On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:39:41 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to maintainers.
Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up in a completely different place to my personal mail.
Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time
Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all his work with.
I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us wouldn't have to keep track of this.
FWIW David Miller has a similar policy: he only applies networking patches that are sent to the netdev mailing list. This seems like a good idea in general (to ensure they are getting exposed to the public).
Mark, any chance we could convince to pick up patches from alsa-devel in the future even if they are sent to the wrong personal email account of yours? I would assume that would only require a small change in your filter rules, not a change in your workflow.
Arnd
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 11:01:52AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:39:41 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com wrote:
Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all his work with.
I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us wouldn't have to keep track of this.
Me too, it's a constant source of aggrivation.
FWIW David Miller has a similar policy: he only applies networking patches that are sent to the netdev mailing list. This seems like a good idea in general (to ensure they are getting exposed to the public).
Right, I do tend to insist on this as well (I also think some other patchwork users do this as well as davem, things need to hit the list to go into patchwork), plus including comaintainers where that's relevant. For the most part anything that ends up going to the work address also has one of those problems.
Mark, any chance we could convince to pick up patches from alsa-devel in the future even if they are sent to the wrong personal email account of yours? I would assume that would only require a small change in your filter rules, not a change in your workflow.
I do look at the lists but it's very easy for things that only go there to get missed and it's fairly low priority, the volume is very high and obviously there's a lot of duplication from things that do land in my inbox. Copying things into my inbox causes duplication problems due to things going to lkml, lakml and subsystem specific lists and alsa-devel being moderated for non-subscribers and subject mangling doesn't help anything.
What's more likely to happen is that I just start ignoring the work policy which is something I've been considering anyway.
participants (5)
-
Arnd Bergmann -
Kukjin Kim -
Mark Brown -
Olof Johansson -
Paul Bolle