From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] S3C24XX/S3C64XX updates Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:23:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20090304004925.530566010@fluff.org.uk> <20090304202952.GA10731@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2391037EB for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:23:26 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20090304202952.GA10731@sirena.org.uk> 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: Mark Brown Cc: Ben Dooks , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:29:54 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > It would be very useful to get the header moves merged > > as soon as possible, to help clear out the old ARM > > include directories (and make it easier for the merges > > from other s3c branches that need to take place in the > > merge window). As such, they're only moves and should > > not affect the actual build. > > Takashi, what do you think about this? Should I send a 2.6.29 update > (it's very late in the game...) or would it be better to deal with this > by trying to merge ALSA early in the merge window? Either way works for > me. Me too :) I wouldn't take this for 2.6.29 as long as it builds now, but this particular change should go through ARM tree, so it's rather Russell's call. Could you forward this one? The others are applied fine to sound tree as 2.6.30 changes. thanks, Takashi