From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.juropnet.hu ([212.24.188.131]:41654 "EHLO mail.juropnet.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756021Ab1FEM2e (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2011 08:28:34 -0400 Received: from [94.248.226.13] by mail.juropnet.hu with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QTCRS-0001WG-6Z for linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:28:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4DEB766D.4040509@mailbox.hu> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:28:29 +0200 From: Istvan Varga MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: XC4000: setting registers References: <4D764337.6050109@email.cz> <20110531124843.377a2a80@glory.local> <20110531174323.0f0c45c0@glory.local> <4DEA4B6A.70602@mailbox.hu> <4DEB710B.4090704@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DEB710B.4090704@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-ID: Sender: On 06/05/2011 02:05 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > This one breaks compilation: > > drivers/media/common/tuners/xc4000.c: In function ‘xc4000_set_analog_params’: > drivers/media/common/tuners/xc4000.c:1340: error: ‘type’ undeclared (first use in this function) > drivers/media/common/tuners/xc4000.c:1340: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > drivers/media/common/tuners/xc4000.c:1340: error: for each function it appears in.) > make[3]: ** [drivers/media/common/tuners/xc4000.o] Erro 1 > make[2]: ** [drivers/media/common/tuners] Erro 2 > make[1]: ** [drivers/media/common] Erro 2 > make: ** [drivers/media/] Erro 2 Yes, it depends on the 'unsigned int type = 0;' declaration that is in the xc4000_analog.patch posted later. Sorry for this mistake. Although perhaps it would have been a better idea to make all the changes to xc4000_set_analog_params() in the analog patch as well, since the function does not work correctly until that is applied. > I didn't made any review of them. Please let me know when you finish > submitting the patches for me to do a review at the resulting code. For now, I do not have more patches. I will wait for the modified code to appear on GIT, and use that as a base for further patches. > Ah, I'd appreciate if you could fix your emails. It takes me some > time to reformat the patches, as you're sending the patches as > attachments, but my email scripts aren't ready for patches with > multiple mime types. Patchwork might help, but it also got only 4 > patches from you (not sure if this is due to patchwork bugs or due to > the attachments). It also helps if you could add [PATCH] at the email > subject. I'm setting a backup process due to the constant patchwork > failures, but my alternative logic relies on having [PATCH] at the > subject logic, to move the patches into a separate mail directory. OK, I have changed the name in "from", and will send any later patches as plain text with [PATCH] in the subject. Should I re-send the previous patches in this format ?