[alsa-devel] [PATCH 16/17] ASoC: Basic split of mpc5200 DMA code out from mpc5200_psc_i2s

[Jon Smirl]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Mark Brown <broonie at sirena.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:37:34PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>
>>> Also, we need to reconsider which of you change is really needed
>>> since the current problem of the PCM will be solved in the PCM
>>> core side soon later without the change of the driver side.
>>
>> AFAICT all the currently posted patches are needed since they're only
>> doing the refactoring of the code required to support AC97.  They're
>> only related to the fixes in that John's board doesn't have I2S but
>> since the DMA is shared the fixes that John develops while making AC97
>> work will also fix I2S.
>
> I purposely sent in refactoring changes that made no functional
> changes to the code.
>
> I have been caught in this mess before. This isn't a simple case of
> resolving conflicts. What happens is that git isn't smart enough to
> track changes across a refactor. That results in big conflicts
> covering most of the contents of the files involved. The conflicts in

Thinking about this for a couple minutes, what happens is the three
way merge becomes a four or more way merge depending on how many new
files were created in the the refactor. Git doesn't have an n-way
merge tool so it just kicks the entire files out as conflicts.


> the refactor then cascade into all of the other patches.
>
> If we put the refactor in front of the fixes git will get everything right.
>
> Why are people going to complain about patches to a driver marked
> broken? You can't even compile it without editing the Kconfig.
>
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Smirl
> jonsmirl at gmail.com
>



-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl at gmail.com