From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Add API call to query valid DAPM paths. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:05:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20120308120554.GL3638@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1331142952-6502-1-git-send-email-lrg@ti.com> <20120307191547.GX3107@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1331206950.3782.5.camel@odin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3333029842707710469==" Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CB010BA57 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:05:56 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1331206950.3782.5.camel@odin> 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: Liam Girdwood Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org --===============3333029842707710469== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lbQeYSs6J2ITmUo7" Content-Disposition: inline --lbQeYSs6J2ITmUo7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:42:30AM +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 19:15 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > I might be blind but I think the hunk that actually declares the widget > > list got dropped from the header... probably in some other part of the > > series you haven't pushed out yet? > I had to double check myself to be sure and Stephen added it a while > back :- > fafd2176f72148e83c64a1f818ff33fceed83d08 Oh, sorry about that - I didn't check the actual code for that one as I saw you adding the forward declaration and normally we're fairly good about always adding those so I figured it was a missing diff hunk. > > > + dapm_reset(card); > > This function isn't in mainline, another patch series reordering thing I > > expect. =20 > It's in 6c120e19fa587710d80757a6e364961a017fb6c3 This one I definitely did check, must've been on a separate branch and didn't notice properly. --lbQeYSs6J2ITmUo7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPWKCbAAoJEBus8iNuMP3dm0IQAIdLALiR7EFziV9KlNIfGyq8 eejKOzfgmPdWVNlJ8tGx7BEpWFnO1EXKhcfSxlBUbNL8gFI3TXXP649HDkkDqkA2 LnKbgZ29il9Bt1PU6EaawsEOl/ZVl1GwKkalMMuTILj+WS/j+abgvG3306szpRW8 6pEzCLpoiBVATPPoWPOkmYFRZFGoFYiL+7feZngQ2M6uVHp5ixoIe8mY8BjJll9x 9o9waib0ZDX+oOw+SrC3yXTdRR4Lc0vwKuoaMcvTSMdkhw5DfegeKDTA0A+UYOMX vENBN+XvQQXE5VQlz1JLERNZALoLWcNO/VZdKDf27ZmquKjfZz5INsBSCYiOCt3L CIDzB1Sy2BiFTG5PZ63MmsGhsvgEFxMDT0yDCqwaARcsnefYCgd571TMK+/azXny vZZ2yY7j7SfmeF+5TqwzZoi00VQ3iF3dvGUniBFhsclmW4xSNgaK00SRPwZgm0pD 5dwIla/CZDfcsynztFvVHnmvIsEPGSzY+MR2dRLqOkbllKDbCtRLYG+DESvED52o r3MMZoLeeB1p94Frx3EI3GTen/40v4Qx4IcGHjaoa9yG4+TwCxARpJ0qm7cP37kd wu2ATQgbTINz4ynM0dkhlBY8F4C7Myk/DOpStxQDMeT8RKRilpLCb7/9qm5sd+0n 9XfR1oKvIvgpj+VvqKEa =2G4o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lbQeYSs6J2ITmUo7-- --===============3333029842707710469== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============3333029842707710469==--