[PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Takashi Iwai]

CONFIG_SND_SOC_DMAENGINE_PCM was renamed to CONFIG_SND_DMAENGINE_PCM
recently.  And yet we don't have to select it since
CONFIG_SND_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM selects the dependency by itself, so
just rip it off.

Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
---
 sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig b/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig
index 3d82a29ce3a8..6a834e109f1d 100644
--- a/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig
+++ b/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
 config SND_BCM2835_SOC_I2S
 	tristate "SoC Audio support for the Broadcom BCM2835 I2S module"
 	depends on ARCH_BCM2835 || COMPILE_TEST
-	select SND_SOC_DMAENGINE_PCM
 	select SND_SOC_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM
 	select REGMAP_MMIO
 	help
-- 
1.8.5.2

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Florian Meier]

Oh I forgot about removing that, thanks!

Acked-by: Florian Meier <florian.meier@koalo.de>

On 01/08/2014 10:37 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> CONFIG_SND_SOC_DMAENGINE_PCM was renamed to CONFIG_SND_DMAENGINE_PCM
> recently.  And yet we don't have to select it since
> CONFIG_SND_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM selects the dependency by itself, so
> just rip it off.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> ---
>  sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig b/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig
> index 3d82a29ce3a8..6a834e109f1d 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig
> +++ b/sound/soc/bcm/Kconfig
> @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
>  config SND_BCM2835_SOC_I2S
>  	tristate "SoC Audio support for the Broadcom BCM2835 I2S module"
>  	depends on ARCH_BCM2835 || COMPILE_TEST
> -	select SND_SOC_DMAENGINE_PCM
>  	select SND_SOC_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM
>  	select REGMAP_MMIO
>  	help
> 

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 317 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:37:07AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> CONFIG_SND_SOC_DMAENGINE_PCM was renamed to CONFIG_SND_DMAENGINE_PCM
> recently.  And yet we don't have to select it since
> CONFIG_SND_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM selects the dependency by itself, so
> just rip it off.

Applied, but please CC maintainers...

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:59:47 +0000,
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:37:07AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > CONFIG_SND_SOC_DMAENGINE_PCM was renamed to CONFIG_SND_DMAENGINE_PCM
> > recently.  And yet we don't have to select it since
> > CONFIG_SND_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM selects the dependency by itself, so
> > just rip it off.
> 
> Applied, but please CC maintainers...

The patch was sent _to_ you.  This means usually a higher priority
than Cc :)

Maybe @linaro.org wasn't good for you?  It was the address deduced
from get_maintainers.pl.


Takashi

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 362 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:08:14PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> Maybe @linaro.org wasn't good for you?  It was the address deduced
> from get_maintainers.pl.

get_maintainers *should* also tell you to use @kernel.org, that's what's
actually in MAINTAINERS (which should be preferred over git history, or
both used) which is where I actually read upstream mail.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:17:09 +0000,
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:08:14PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > Maybe @linaro.org wasn't good for you?  It was the address deduced
> > from get_maintainers.pl.
> 
> get_maintainers *should* also tell you to use @kernel.org, that's what's
> actually in MAINTAINERS (which should be preferred over git history, or
> both used) which is where I actually read upstream mail.

Then the problem is that you committed and signed off with linaro.org
address in git.  If you don't want receive any patches at this
address, you should never use it for git.  As a Netiquette, one
shouldn't post a mail to multiple addresses if it's known for the same
person.


Takashi

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:29:01AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:

> > get_maintainers *should* also tell you to use @kernel.org, that's what's
> > actually in MAINTAINERS (which should be preferred over git history, or
> > both used) which is where I actually read upstream mail.

> Then the problem is that you committed and signed off with linaro.org
> address in git.  If you don't want receive any patches at this

It's getting more common these days, companies want their address to end
up in git but it's not so good for upstream mail for whatever reason
(historically a lot of it has been Exchange related, though that's not
the case for me).  It's more noticable for people applying patches than
for people sending them.

> address, you should never use it for git.  As a Netiquette, one
> shouldn't post a mail to multiple addresses if it's known for the same
> person.

Sure, but if you're going to use one I'd expect the MAINTAINERS address
to win - I did have someone the other day using my Wolfson address still
since they were going off signoffs and the thing they were working on
wasn't that actively developed.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:32:01 +0000,
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:29:01AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > get_maintainers *should* also tell you to use @kernel.org, that's what's
> > > actually in MAINTAINERS (which should be preferred over git history, or
> > > both used) which is where I actually read upstream mail.
> 
> > Then the problem is that you committed and signed off with linaro.org
> > address in git.  If you don't want receive any patches at this
> 
> It's getting more common these days, companies want their address to end
> up in git but it's not so good for upstream mail for whatever reason
> (historically a lot of it has been Exchange related, though that's not
> the case for me).  It's more noticable for people applying patches than
> for people sending them.

There is no general rule that MAINTAINERS address wins over others.
Many developers use other addresses primarily than the old address on
MAINTAINERS file.  Your case is rather rare, I'd say.

> > address, you should never use it for git.  As a Netiquette, one
> > shouldn't post a mail to multiple addresses if it's known for the same
> > person.
> 
> Sure, but if you're going to use one I'd expect the MAINTAINERS address
> to win - I did have someone the other day using my Wolfson address still
> since they were going off signoffs and the thing they were working on
> wasn't that actively developed.

MAINTAINERS file isn't always updated frequently enough, too.  So, at
best, one would compare the time the address was used and decide which
address has a higher chance to reach.


Takashi

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: bcm: Remove obsoleted Kconfig dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:00:07PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:

> > It's getting more common these days, companies want their address to end
> > up in git but it's not so good for upstream mail for whatever reason
> > (historically a lot of it has been Exchange related, though that's not
> > the case for me).  It's more noticable for people applying patches than
> > for people sending them.

> There is no general rule that MAINTAINERS address wins over others.
> Many developers use other addresses primarily than the old address on
> MAINTAINERS file.  Your case is rather rare, I'd say.

It seems the wider use get_maintianer.pl has changed that - people seem
more dilligent about updating their addresses now (especially if the one
that's there is a problem).  I do also have to say that this complaint
typically also comes along with people not CCing Liam which tends to
suggest that they didn't consult MAINTAINERS at all.

> > Sure, but if you're going to use one I'd expect the MAINTAINERS address
> > to win - I did have someone the other day using my Wolfson address still
> > since they were going off signoffs and the thing they were working on
> > wasn't that actively developed.

> MAINTAINERS file isn't always updated frequently enough, too.  So, at
> best, one would compare the time the address was used and decide which
> address has a higher chance to reach.

Well, in my case it's very rare that a mail from my linaro.org address
goes upstream...

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]