From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:54035 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752661Ab0GITjZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:39:25 -0400 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14so1329912fxm.19 for ; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C377AE7.9070404@googlemail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:39:19 +0200 From: Sven Barth MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LMML CC: Mike Isely , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: Status of the patches under review at LMML (60 patches) References: <4C332A5F.4000706@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi! On 08.07.2010 05:31, Mike Isely wrote: > These are cx25840 patches and I'm not the maintainer of that module. I > can't really speak to the correctness of the changes. Best I can do is > to try the patch with a few pvrusb2-driven devices here that use the > cx25840 module. I've done that now (HVR-1950 and PVR-USB2 model 24012) > and everything continues to work fine. I also retested the patch (with the recent v4l changes) and my device continues to work as expected (using your current snapshot from July, Mike :) ). > Note, this part of the patch: > > int hw_fix = state->pvr150_workaround; > - > - if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_JP) { > + if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_JP) { > /* Japan uses EIAJ audio standard */ > cx25840_write(client, 0x808, hw_fix ? 0x2f : 0xf7); > } else if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_KR) { > > is a whitespace-only change which introduces a bogus tab and messes up > the indentation of that opening if-statement. It should probably be > removed from the patch. I wonder how that came in there... my excuses for this (and also the removed new line some lines below that). > Other than that, you have my ack: > > Acked-By: Mike Isely > > -Mike > > Hmm... I've read a bit in the wiki about submitting patches and read that one should sign-off his/her patches... as I didn't do that back then (as I thought that patch would be open for discussion ^^ - note to self: add RFC next time), should I resend the patch with a comment and the sign-off (and excluding the indentation mistake) or should I just send a sign-off in reference to this patch? Or something else? Regards, Sven