From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Dietsche Subject: Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:58:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4DED3F8E.60400@cuw.edu> References: <1307321274-21858-1-git-send-email-Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu> <4DEC9E6B.8030505@cam.ac.uk> <4DECCBFB.2020307@cuw.edu> <4DECD0B1.4010802@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DECD0B1.4010802@cam.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.de, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, lrg@ti.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi Jonathan, On 06/06/2011 08:05 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 06/06/11 13:45, Greg Dietsche wrote: > > >>> Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the >>> equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets. Ack is for >>> what is here, plus those if you do them. >>> >>> I updated the patch to include these too. >>> Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a >>> simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise! >>> >>> ...and remove LKML from the CC list... :) > Fair enough. The posting to lkml makes more sense now I know it came > out of coccinelle (I guess with a load of others? - if so convention would be > a handful... not too many, but it sounds like if my semantic patch were to be improved, there might be a few more. > to put them all in a series cc'ing the relevant lists / maintainers for individual > patches in the series - that way everyone knows what is going on). > > If it is an individual patch like this, then use apply common sense. It makes > no functional changes + is well within a subsystem with it's own active mailing > list. It needs to be sent somewhere publicly, but in this case > I'd say alsa-devel is the right destination. The only people who are even going > to read this are the subsystem maintainer, the driver author or the chronically > bored. > > Also I think convention is to have the script somewhere (cover letter to that > series perhaps?). See the other series people have done with coccinelle and > how they handled this. > > Thanks so much for the great explanation being patient with a kernel newbie :) Greg