[alsa-devel] [PATCH 4/4] ALSA: ASoC: Davinci: Fixed missing McBSP pinmux for SFFSDR

[Kevin Hilman]

Hugo Villeneuve <hugo at hugovil.com> writes:

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:20:15 -0700
> Kevin Hilman <khilman at deeprootsystems.com> wrote:
>
>> Hugo Villeneuve <hugo at hugovil.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:55:06 -0700
>> > Kevin Hilman <khilman at deeprootsystems.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hugo Villeneuve <hugo at hugovil.com> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:16:32 +0000
>> >> > Mark Brown <broonie at sirena.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:03:41AM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > I based those patches on the latest linux-davinci git tree,
>> >> >> > which has the function.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Do not submit patches for mainline which are not based on
>> >> >> mainline trees.  Code which relies on out of tree changes needs
>> >> >> to wait for those out of tree changes to be merged before
>> >> >> submitting to mainline.
>> >> >
>> >> > I did not know that these changes were not in mainline yet. I was
>> >> > told that all davinci ASoC code changes were to be submitted only
>> >> > to ALSA, and then were imported back into the davinci git tree.
>> >> > Apparently this is not quite like that anymore.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kevin, what is the new rule to submit davinci ASoC patches?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> The DaVinci ASoC code is indeed in mainline, but not all of the
>> >> DaVinci core (in this case the pin mux) is yet in mainline.  I
>> >> will be pushing it during the next merge window.
>> >
>> > That doesn't really answer my question.
>> >
>> > I can see that David Brownell pushed a patch to the davinci tree
>> > directly modifying sound/soc/davinci/davinci-evm.c which IS in
>> > mainline. Does this means that as of now all ASoC patches should be
>> > sent first to the Davinci list, and then you will push those to the
>> > mainline kernel?
>> >
>> 
>> No ASoc patches should be generated against an ASoC tree and submitted
>> to alsa-devel, and CC davinci list.
>> 
>> This means that the until the DaVinci core is in mainline, DaVinci
>> git will have slightly different looking ASoC drivers, but those
>> changes will be minimal.
>
> Ok, so the patch affecting sound/soc/davinci/davinci-evm.c SHOULD have
> been submitted to ALSA first.

Yes, but it should've been a patch against an ASoC tree, not against
DaVinci git which may contain things not (yet) in the ASoC tree.

> It is not easy following you guys. You say something and then do the
> opposite.

Heh, sorry.

Do as I do, not as I say.  ;)

Kevin