On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 02:54:22PM -0300, Geraldo Nascimento wrote:

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

...

There's absolutely no problem with reposting someone else's patch - just add your Signed-off-by at the end of the signoff chain.

Mark, I'm in no position to lecture anyone, least of who, you, hard-working ASoC maintainer that you are. But there are *tons* of problems with reposting someone else's patch, even if they had been previously given the green-light but misteriously vanished.

You are assuming responsibility for someone else's work! Let's see in

Oh, sure - but TBH if you're chasing a patch via e-mail you're pretty much going to be in a similar situation if that results in the patch getting applied. A big part of the goal behind getting things reposted is to push them through the normal test/review cycle properly so if there was some reason for it to not get applied the first time around it's more likely that someone will notice than if it's just pulled out of list archives or whatever.

My main point is that without adding "resets" and "reset-names" to *at least* every Rockchip device tree that enables sound over HDMI, just an example, you get systems with non-working HDMI. I just tested it, I omitted "resets" and "reset-names" from my device tree and then had to SSH into the black screen to revert the changes to my boot partition.

So it's not trivial to RESEND this. It amounts to device tree overhaul of arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip

This would require community effort of say, equivalent to LibreELEC resources, which are not many, but they have enough patience to test every proposed change to Rockchip device trees, and could help upstream this.

Right, that's a problem. Even with those changes if we start requiring new properties that'd be an ABI break anyway which isn't something we want for DT - ideally the patch should be reworked so that existing systems continue to work even without DT updates.