From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E893E1B87E8; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 13:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756214825; cv=none; b=ANqvM20eBUfMUB8VR2m6txcZuUu7Ia4vg93uBQHkBIzVfs0NabY8ATj0nTpK5M4l69QwdNle0OKKO4iSUvbSJIos2S0z+F9EAxx1UfMV0bqn9v2ccb11/Iixt9N7KsWtJxJuhCQl6Qi6JrvyZZr8XsnLfvjZFnHXDeL6W/4MGok= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756214825; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ohiruboO9TWOx8ZG2GdZ9frjnkAwhg66K13KNG9Y4TM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lTDSczbzecILynDRGSPsGdT5ukdPeFXvoWskqJP2Dnh4SpXGGR3KX8fGXLmoj2KJzDJpeWHaDUZaNK/1/chI18nqpUmCZYJzTeuaZhSqRa5j9BCXTmcnuSoKutyOLfDIbE0uVFsNaQ1PCsmqLtyJ6/xrhGRbkkiYBv0K0ljRCHc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=ZRSecye5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="ZRSecye5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1756214824; x=1787750824; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ohiruboO9TWOx8ZG2GdZ9frjnkAwhg66K13KNG9Y4TM=; b=ZRSecye51jEOZiCJnj122BD66x5SX/2ic0GILIKM2kCbjni/tlMGDz7X TdQhkHW8lAD1nwAEy1coW48+PeC7HzbBgeoRBmts1ewBB68rvUyc2lS1y 0Yw5psuueW6dEkq/Ub1+u0iSPU7ttNAy8VvErXDhBKS8uCgh9JGNccAYi qKW+ZH2qlJHNLO7JWL+1JQfnxyb3zDK664lV2yeWxW6oCzeVtbPKzqyVz l8UBjpwCxCZ+t27PbAR2Ti77N4Yi7a1sj3c2nxxmT+8PxBw5a3qK2I5Ku Xmfl36l5y+divfICvG2TMY7cvaN+xubwu6MW36hRxWeBJGcTlDb7FrnE0 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: soLCUXYrQtWs6jqftNApoA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: iPlb5Q/HSFCC3PJNwfGZ0g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11534"; a="57465824" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.18,214,1751266800"; d="scan'208";a="57465824" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by fmvoesa113.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Aug 2025 06:27:03 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: MBF7D61jRkG9zJz1iYhQVQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 7mvjphtbTC61pLIFmTLKrw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.18,214,1751266800"; d="scan'208";a="169069906" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.52]) by fmviesa007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Aug 2025 06:27:02 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uqthT-00000008moV-0Pou; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 16:26:59 +0300 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 16:26:58 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header Message-ID: References: <20250331070943.3986387-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 09:13:20PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 07:01:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:45:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed > > > directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches > > > anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are > > > some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches > > > for the subsystem are normally handled. > > > I truly believe the 5 month is reasonable time for review, no? > > You're missing the part about how you should resend instead. Noted, thanks! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko