From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Fitzgerald Subject: Re: [PATCH TINYCOMPRESS 14/14] cplay: support auto-configuration of fragment size and count Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:58:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20130211095845.GA27658@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20130210002340.GN31139@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20130211085311.GC3789@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC8C260325 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:08:01 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211085311.GC3789@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Vinod Koul Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org > looks like patches you have generated against is > older one. Yes this is true, which is how it should be. These patches and the ones from Charles Keepax are a single development line, and Charles's patches were based on top of this sequence. What's happened is that the patches from Charles have been upstreamed and applied out-of-order. These 14 should be applied, and then the set from Charles.