From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/0] McBSP changes for OMAP4 platform Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:49:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20100512084930.GA4330@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <1273108546-2507-1-git-send-email-jorge.candelaria@ti.com> <201005121139.26990.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:39946 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754756Ab0ELItc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 04:49:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005121139.26990.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: ext Jorge Eduardo Candelaria , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , lrg@slimlogic.co.uk, tony@atomide.com On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:39:26AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > Looks good with Jarkko's comment. > However, I'd like to ask Tony, Liam, Jarkko, and Mark the following: > Would it make sense to use the alsa tree for OMAP McBSP related patches, while > keeping l-o in CC off course. We've had to do this a few times in the past due to the way the code is split between the two areas. If it makes everyone's life easier I've got no problem with it, though I'll say my standard thing about it being better to keep them on a branch by themselves which can be pulled into both trees in case of any merge issues.