From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37766 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755889Ab1FEM4R (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2011 08:56:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4DEB7CEC.9090305@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:56:12 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Istvan Varga CC: 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> <4DEB766D.4040509@mailbox.hu> In-Reply-To: <4DEB766D.4040509@mailbox.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-ID: Sender: Em 05-06-2011 09:28, Istvan Varga escreveu: > 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. Ok. It is a good idea to number a series of patches, for me to apply them at the right order ;) > >> 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. Ok, just pushed it (I forgot to use the -f tag). Please double check if the code is working on the devices you have. >> 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 ? No, there's no need. I'll get a diff from all those x4000 series any post a review about the entire series, as if it were just one big patch. Cheers, Mauro