From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] ASoC: Overhaul Samsung drivers Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:52:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20101019085252.GB10381@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1287471805-17952-1-git-send-email-jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> <053901cb6f5f$76b9dea0$642d9be0$%kim@samsung.com> <20101019110015.49dcb79b@anarsoul-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF36F10387D for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:54:03 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101019110015.49dcb79b@anarsoul-laptop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Vasily khoruzhick Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Kukjin Kim , 'Jassi Brar' , 'Jassi Brar' , ben-linux@fluff.org, june.bae@samsung.com, sw.youn@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lrg@slimlogic.co.uk List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:00:15AM +0300, Vasily khoruzhick wrote: > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > I suggest the patches 13,14,16 & 17 go via Kgene's Tree, and the rest via > > > ASoC > > > tree due to tight dependencies. > > Hmm...in my opinion, it would be better to me if could send arch/arm/ stuff > > to upstream via my tree even though there are dependencies. > > Mark, how do you think? > As for me, that's not a good idea. We'll get massive breakage during > 2.6.37 merge window then. Here's example: my sound-related changes to > machine files are merged through Ben's tree, but these changes aren't > in asoc tree, so Jassi is no aware of them, but now these changes are > outdated a bit due to device renaming. And this introduce compile > breakage. Since my primary development platforms are Samsung reference boards I'm especially unenthusiastic about anything which creates cross-tree issues. My stock answer to things like this is that if we can't split things up so that dependencies are avoided then we should create a branch which can be pulled into both trees. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:52:52 -0700 Subject: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 00/25] ASoC: Overhaul Samsung drivers In-Reply-To: <20101019110015.49dcb79b@anarsoul-laptop> References: <1287471805-17952-1-git-send-email-jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> <053901cb6f5f$76b9dea0$642d9be0$%kim@samsung.com> <20101019110015.49dcb79b@anarsoul-laptop> Message-ID: <20101019085252.GB10381@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:00:15AM +0300, Vasily khoruzhick wrote: > Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > I suggest the patches 13,14,16 & 17 go via Kgene's Tree, and the rest via > > > ASoC > > > tree due to tight dependencies. > > Hmm...in my opinion, it would be better to me if could send arch/arm/ stuff > > to upstream via my tree even though there are dependencies. > > Mark, how do you think? > As for me, that's not a good idea. We'll get massive breakage during > 2.6.37 merge window then. Here's example: my sound-related changes to > machine files are merged through Ben's tree, but these changes aren't > in asoc tree, so Jassi is no aware of them, but now these changes are > outdated a bit due to device renaming. And this introduce compile > breakage. Since my primary development platforms are Samsung reference boards I'm especially unenthusiastic about anything which creates cross-tree issues. My stock answer to things like this is that if we can't split things up so that dependencies are avoided then we should create a branch which can be pulled into both trees.