Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

Takashi Iwai
2017-11-28T12:46:32Z

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:33:48 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> >> It seems then that you can not get the kind of information you might be looking for
> >> at the moment from me (alone).
> >
> > No, the patch itself speaks.
>
> Are we still trying to clarify (only) two possible update steps
> for this software module?

No.

> > If you get more reviewed-by from others, it means already it's safer
> > to apply. Then I can take it.
>
> How are the statistics for such tags in the sound subsystem?

Just like other subsystems, with usual reviewed-by tags.

> > But without that, it's obviously no material to take.
>
> Thanks for such an explanation of your current view.
>
>
> >> I hope that mailing list readers could offer something.
> >
> > Let's hope.
>
> Are any additional communication interfaces helpful?

No idea.

> >> Did this software module become “too old”?
> >
> > Mostly the hardware is too old,
>
> Which time frames have you got in mind for acceptable software maintenance?

It's not a question to me but to users.

> > or the change itself isn't interesting enough.
>
> This is another general possibility.
>
>
> >> Can higher level transformation patterns become easier to accept
> >> by any other means?
> >
> > Only if it's assured to work and not to break anything else.
>
> Have you got any steps in mind for an improved “feeling” or “assurance”?

Just do proper testing. Either on a real hardware or on a VM.

> >> How much does the omission of such an useful development tool
> >> influence your concerns?
> >
> > Can't judge unless I really see / use it.
>
> I find that there are some options to consider.
>
> >> Would you like to improve the software situation in any ways there?
> >
> > I *hope*, but only when it's not too annoying.
>
> Under which circumstances are you going to start working with a continuous
> integration system?

It's irrelevant, don't side-step.

Takashi