From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:44189 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753313Ab0JTFU2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:20:28 -0400 Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so1011985bwz.19 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CBE7BFA.6020507@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:19:54 +0200 From: Sven Barth MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab CC: Andy Walls , LMML , "Igor M. Liplianin" , Manu Abraham , Jean-Francois Moine , Jarod Wilson , Richard Zidlicky , Antti Palosaari , Patrick Boettcher , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Henrik Kurelid , Hans de Goede Subject: Re: Old patches sent via the Mailing list References: <4CBB689F.1070100@redhat.com> <1287358617.2320.12.camel@morgan.silverblock.net> <4CBBE5F6.6030201@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4CBBE5F6.6030201@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: Am 18.10.2010 08:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > Em 17-10-2010 21:36, Andy Walls escreveu: >> On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 19:20 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I did a large effort during this weekend to handle the maximum amount of patches, in order to have them >>> ready for 2.6.37. While there are still some patches marked as NEW at patchwork, and a few pending pull >>> requests (mostly related to more kABI changes), there are still a list of patches that are marked as >>> Under review. Except for 4 patches from me, related to Doc (that I'm keeping in this list just to remind >>> me that I'll need to fix them when I have some time - just some automation stuff at DocBook), all other >>> patches marked as Under review are stuff that I basically depend on others. >>> >>> The last time I sent this list, I was about to travel, and I may have missed some comments, or maybe I >>> may just forgot to update. But I suspect that, for the list bellow, most of them are stuff where the >>> driver maintainer just forgot at limbo. >>> >>> > From the list of patches under review, we have: >>> >>> Waiting for new patch, signed, from Sven Barth >>> Apr,25 2010: Problem with cx25840 and Terratec Grabster AV400 http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/94960 Sven Barth >> >> Sven, >> >> We need a "Signed-off-by: " for your submitted patch: >> >> http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Submitting_Patches#Sign_your_work >> >> Note, your patch has an obvious, unintentional white space change for >> "if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_JP)", so could you fix that up and send a >> new signed off version? >> >> >> Mauro, >> >> This patch makes obvious sense to me: don't perform audio register >> updates on a chip that doesn't have an audio processing block. Sven's >> approach was based on my recommended approach, after his initial >> discovery on how to get his audio working. >> >> Do we really need an S.O.B for something that appears to be common >> sense, and wouldn't have been implemented any other way, even if I had >> implemented it? > > The original patch were in the middle of a discussion, no proper description, > bad whitespacing, etc. It is better to let the patch author to fix those issues, > as they learn more about how to submit a patch. > > Anyway, I agree with you, the patch is obvious, and can proceed without the SOB. > I did the usual CodingStyle fixups, put part of your above comment as the patch > description, together with your ack and moved it forward. One patch less on my queue ;) > > Cheers, > Mauro Eh... I thought I had superseeded it with the patch from 10th July (mail title: [PATCH] Add support for AUX_PLL on cx2583x chips). It included a "Signed-of by" from me as well as "Acked by" from Mike and Andy and I also excluded the whitespace change ^^ Regards, Sven