Michael Gao wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 18:00 +0100, Dirk Behme wrote:
steven.zhang wrote:
Thanks so much. I have fixed things as your suggestion before and
resubmit .
patches apply to git://source.mvista.com/git/linux-davinci-2.6
TAG: pre-2.6.24-merge
git apply 01-resizer-driver-supported-by-TI.patch
git apply 02-port-resize-driver.patch
Many thanks! Some comments though ;)
- You created the patches with strip level 2 (as I already mentioned,
this "a/" and "b/" directory level stuff). Standard is 1. I had to
find out how to switch my patch tool (quilt) to strip level 2 to be
able to apply your patches. But yes, if I did this, both patches
apply cleanly. Thanks!
- 01-resizer-driver-supported-by-TI.patch isn't checkpatch fixed.
Seems that you tried to fix 02-port-resize-driver.patch, but now there is
ERROR: need a space before the open brace '{'
#318: FILE: linux-2.6.23/drivers/char/davinci_resizer.c:1549:
+ if (misc_register(&resizer_device)){
You really should try ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
<path-to>/02-port-resize-driver.patch in Linux kernel main directory.
It's quite easy.
Regarding sending patches:
- Don't forget a Signed-off-by
- If you send more than one patch (as it is the case for this), you
should send three separate mails (for two patches ;) ). The first
(0/2) with a general description what the patches are about. Here you
can write everything you like. Then two mails with the two patches
(1/2 and 2/2) with the signed of by and the exact description of this
patch. This text then goes into git. E.g.
[PATCH 0/2] ARM: DAVINCI: port video resizer driver from kernel 2.6.10
to kernel 2.6.23
This patch series <any useful description not going to git>
[PATCH 1/2] ARM: DAVINCI: <any speaking subject>
<description going into git>
Signed-off-by: ...
Attachment: 01-resizer-driver-supported-by-TI.patch
PATCH 2/2] ARM: DAVINCI: <any speaking subject>
<description going into git>
Signed-off-by: ...
Attachment: 02-port-resize-driver.patch
(Attachments should have *no* checkpatch complains any more and should
have strip level 1)
Regards
Dirk
Btw: I did this in private mail. Normally it is better to do such
stuff publically on the list. Would this be okay for you? Or is it
better to discuss this in private?
Dirk,
Thanks for the detailed description on the steps, and thanks for even
presenting this private conversation. ;-)
In general, I think it is better to discuss publicly (I see people are
asking these same questions and/or making these same mistakes over and
over), it benefits everyone by publicly going over the mistakes or
deficiencies. I wonder if these steps have been posted centrally
somewhere (digging up the ML is no fun).
No and yes ;)
No, you are right, not specifically for DaVinci (as I know).
Yes, as these rules are mainly not DaVinci specific and apply to most
(all?) other lists as well. The only DaVinci specifics are the string
"DaVinci" in subject ;) and that it seems that on this list
attachments are accepted. On some other lists patches have to be inlined.
Regarding patch submission rules, see e.g.
http://www.muru.com/linux/omap/README_OMAP_PATCHES
http://linux.omap.com/pipermail/davinci-linux-open-source/2008-February/005146.html
But, yes, you are right, it would make sense to write down patch
submission rules specifically for DaVinci. I will see if I can extend
http://wiki.davincidsp.com/index.php?title=Working_with_Linux_patches#Sending_patches_upstream
Thanks for the hint
Dirk
Speaking of the patch itself, Steven was helping to push the original
patch I did, so I am the one who should take the blame. ;-)
Steven, please continue to follow Dirk's suggestions above to revise the
patch in order to push it upstream. Feel free to ask questions on this
list.
Thanks all,
/MG
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
