ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Paul Bolle]

Kukjin,

Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440
and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to
MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.

It seems to have missed one reference to MACH_SMDK6450 in
sound/soc/samsung/Kconfig (an optional dependency of
SND_SOC_SMDK_WM8580_PCM). Is the oneliner to remove that optional
dependency queued somewhere?


Paul Bolle

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Paul Bolle]

Kukjin,

Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440
and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to
MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.

It seems to have missed one reference to MACH_SMDK6450 in
sound/soc/samsung/Kconfig (an optional dependency of
SND_SOC_SMDK_WM8580_PCM). Is the oneliner to remove that optional
dependency queued somewhere?


Paul Bolle

Re: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 347 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:

> Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440
> and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to
> MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.

This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
maintainers.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:

> Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440
> and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to
> MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.

This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
maintainers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140702/e55aa234/attachment.sig>

Re: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Kukjin Kim]

On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
>
>> Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440
>> and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to
>> MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.
>
Yeah, I missed the removing when I created the patch. Paul, thanks for 
your pointing out and I'm resending the updated patch.

> This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> maintainers.

Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case 
the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any 
problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether 
there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.

Thanks,
Kukjin

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Kukjin Kim]

On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
>
>> Your commit 0aeaa68cf509 ("ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440
>> and S5P6450 SoCs") landed in next-20140702. It removed references to
>> MACH_SMDK6440 and MACH_SMDK6450 from sound/soc/samsung/.
>
Yeah, I missed the removing when I created the patch. Paul, thanks for 
your pointing out and I'm resending the updated patch.

> This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> maintainers.

Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case 
the patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any 
problems, please let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether 
there is no problem with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.

Thanks,
Kukjin

Re: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:

> >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> >maintainers.

> Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
> patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
> let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
> with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.

It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org 
which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
in a completely different place to my personal mail.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:

> >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> >maintainers.

> Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
> patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
> let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
> with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.

It looks like you've sent it to broonie at linaro.org not broonie at kernel.org 
which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
in a completely different place to my personal mail.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140703/1c74f73f/attachment.sig>

RE: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Kukjin Kim]

Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> > >maintainers.
> 
> > Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
> > patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
> > let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
> > with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
> 
> It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org
> which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
> that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
> generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
> in a completely different place to my personal mail.

Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off
in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.

I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time ;-)

And you have any comments or ack on the series, please kindly let me know.

Thanks,
Kukjin

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Kukjin Kim]

Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> > >maintainers.
> 
> > Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
> > patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
> > let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
> > with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
> 
> It looks like you've sent it to broonie at linaro.org not broonie at kernel.org
> which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
> that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
> generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
> in a completely different place to my personal mail.

Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off
in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.

I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time ;-)

And you have any comments or ack on the series, please kindly let me know.

Thanks,
Kukjin

Re: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> > On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> > >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
>> > >maintainers.
>>
>> > Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
>> > patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
>> > let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
>> > with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
>>
>> It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org
>> which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
>> that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
>> generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
>> in a completely different place to my personal mail.
>
> Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off
> in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
>
> I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time ;-)

Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap
for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all
his work with.

I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his
long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us
wouldn't have to keep track of this. :(


-Olof

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> > On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> > >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
>> > >maintainers.
>>
>> > Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
>> > patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
>> > let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
>> > with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
>>
>> It looks like you've sent it to broonie at linaro.org not broonie at kernel.org
>> which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
>> that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
>> generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
>> in a completely different place to my personal mail.
>
> Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off
> in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
>
> I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time ;-)

Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap
for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all
his work with.

I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his
long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us
wouldn't have to keep track of this. :(


-Olof

Re: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:39:41 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >> > On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> > >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> >> > >maintainers.
> >>
> >> > Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
> >> > patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
> >> > let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
> >> > with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
> >>
> >> It looks like you've sent it to broonie@linaro.org not broonie@kernel.org
> >> which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
> >> that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
> >> generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
> >> in a completely different place to my personal mail.
> >
> > Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off
> > in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
> >
> > I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time 
> 
> Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap
> for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all
> his work with.
> 
> I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his
> long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us
> wouldn't have to keep track of this. 

FWIW David Miller has a similar policy: he only applies networking
patches that are sent to the netdev mailing list. This seems like
a good idea in general (to ensure they are getting exposed to the
public).

Mark, any chance we could convince to pick up patches from
alsa-devel in the future even if they are sent to the wrong
personal email account of yours? I would assume that would only
require a small change in your filter rules, not a change in your
workflow.

	Arnd

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:39:41 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:07AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >> > On 07/02/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> > >This also wasn't sent to me for review, please always send patches to
> >> > >maintainers.
> >>
> >> > Mark, I always send patches to regarding maintainers and in this case the
> >> > patch missed the change. I'm resending new patch and if any problems, please
> >> > let me know. Just note, I just wanted to check whether there is no problem
> >> > with other maintainers' tree early in -next tree.
> >>
> >> It looks like you've sent it to broonie at linaro.org not broonie at kernel.org
> >> which is listed in MAINTAINERS and what I use for e-mail - upstream mail
> >> that goes to my work address often just gets dropped on the floor (and
> >> generally ends up at the bottom of my queue to look at) since it ends up
> >> in a completely different place to my personal mail.
> >
> > Mark, oh, I see. But I checked your e-mail address from recent your sign-off
> > in git commit so, just thought it should be fine.
> >
> > I will use kernel.org for your e-mail address next time 
> 
> Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap
> for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all
> his work with.
> 
> I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his
> long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us
> wouldn't have to keep track of this. 

FWIW David Miller has a similar policy: he only applies networking
patches that are sent to the netdev mailing list. This seems like
a good idea in general (to ensure they are getting exposed to the
public).

Mark, any chance we could convince to pick up patches from
alsa-devel in the future even if they are sent to the wrong
personal email account of yours? I would assume that would only
require a small change in your filter rules, not a change in your
workflow.

	Arnd

Re: ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1993 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 11:01:52AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:39:41 Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:

> > Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap
> > for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all
> > his work with.

> > I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his
> > long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us
> > wouldn't have to keep track of this. 

Me too, it's a constant source of aggrivation.

> FWIW David Miller has a similar policy: he only applies networking
> patches that are sent to the netdev mailing list. This seems like
> a good idea in general (to ensure they are getting exposed to the
> public).

Right, I do tend to insist on this as well (I also think some other
patchwork users do this as well as davem, things need to hit the list to
go into patchwork), plus including comaintainers where that's relevant.
For the most part anything that ends up going to the work address also
has one of those problems.

> Mark, any chance we could convince to pick up patches from
> alsa-devel in the future even if they are sent to the wrong
> personal email account of yours? I would assume that would only
> require a small change in your filter rules, not a change in your
> workflow.

I do look at the lists but it's very easy for things that only go there
to get missed and it's fairly low priority, the volume is very high and
obviously there's a lot of duplication from things that do land in my
inbox.  Copying things into my inbox causes duplication problems due to
things going to lkml, lakml and subsystem specific lists and alsa-devel
being moderated for non-subscribers and subject mangling doesn't help
anything.

What's more likely to happen is that I just start ignoring the work
policy which is something I've been considering anyway.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

ASoC: samsung: MACH_SMDK6450

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 11:01:52AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:39:41 Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:

> > Mark is the _only_ linux developer in the world who will give you crap
> > for sending him patches to the very same email that he signs off all
> > his work with.

> > I really wish Linaro would just let him sign off with his
> > long-standing kernel.org email address instead so the rest of us
> > wouldn't have to keep track of this. 

Me too, it's a constant source of aggrivation.

> FWIW David Miller has a similar policy: he only applies networking
> patches that are sent to the netdev mailing list. This seems like
> a good idea in general (to ensure they are getting exposed to the
> public).

Right, I do tend to insist on this as well (I also think some other
patchwork users do this as well as davem, things need to hit the list to
go into patchwork), plus including comaintainers where that's relevant.
For the most part anything that ends up going to the work address also
has one of those problems.

> Mark, any chance we could convince to pick up patches from
> alsa-devel in the future even if they are sent to the wrong
> personal email account of yours? I would assume that would only
> require a small change in your filter rules, not a change in your
> workflow.

I do look at the lists but it's very easy for things that only go there
to get missed and it's fairly low priority, the volume is very high and
obviously there's a lot of duplication from things that do land in my
inbox.  Copying things into my inbox causes duplication problems due to
things going to lkml, lakml and subsystem specific lists and alsa-devel
being moderated for non-subscribers and subject mangling doesn't help
anything.

What's more likely to happen is that I just start ignoring the work
policy which is something I've been considering anyway.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140704/8ac9d058/attachment.sig>