On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:51:17PM +, Charles Keepax wrote:
> The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
> missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> > I see. Well I'm not sure how. If we apply it to either ASoC or MFD and
> > other patches pertaining to that file subsequently appear, then
> > conflict is likely. As you know, the commonly used mitigation
>
> It shouldn't be that likely, we're adding entries to the middle of big,
> ordered
I see. Well I'm not sure how. If we apply it to either ASoC or MFD and
other patches pertaining to that file subsequently appear, then
conflict is likely. As you know, the commonly used mitigation
It shouldn't be that likely, we're adding entries to the middle of big,
ordered tables -
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:51:17PM +, Charles Keepax wrote:
The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:42:02PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> I see. Well I'm not sure how. If we apply it to either ASoC or MFD and
> other patches pertaining to that file subsequently appear, then
> conflict is likely. As you know, the commonly used mitigation
It shouldn't be that likely, we're
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:27:01PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > That seems excessive and it probably ought to go in as a bug fix
> > > afterwards. Given that it's just an addition of data to the table I'd
> >
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:27:01PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That seems excessive and it probably ought to go in as a bug fix
> > afterwards. Given that it's just an addition of data to the table I'd
> > expect we could cope, we've routinely done that
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:24:42PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > I'm not keen on this patch going through ASoC, as it might make things
> > equally as awkward later in the cycle. We should have created an
> > immutable branch for that really. I guess this
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:24:42PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> I'm not keen on this patch going through ASoC, as it might make things
> equally as awkward later in the cycle. We should have created an
> immutable branch for that really. I guess this will have to wait for
> the next cycle now...
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:24:42PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
> > missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax
> > ---
> >
> > This patch depends on the patch:
>
> The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
> missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax
> ---
>
> This patch depends on the patch:
>
> "ASoC: wm5110: Add extra AIF2 channels"
>
> Which is going through
The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax
---
This patch depends on the patch:
"ASoC: wm5110: Add extra AIF2 channels"
Which is going through the ASoC tree at the
The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckee...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
---
This patch depends on the patch:
ASoC: wm5110: Add extra AIF2 channels
Which is
The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckee...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
---
This patch depends on the patch:
ASoC: wm5110: Add extra AIF2 channels
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:24:42PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
The registers associated with the new channels on AIF2 were accidentally
missing defaults and not marked as readable this patch fixes this.
Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckee...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
---
This patch
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:24:42PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
I'm not keen on this patch going through ASoC, as it might make things
equally as awkward later in the cycle. We should have created an
immutable branch for that really. I guess this will have to wait for
the next cycle now...
That
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:24:42PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
I'm not keen on this patch going through ASoC, as it might make things
equally as awkward later in the cycle. We should have created an
immutable branch for that really. I guess this will
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:27:01PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
That seems excessive and it probably ought to go in as a bug fix
afterwards. Given that it's just an addition of data to the table I'd
expect we could cope, we've routinely done that with
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:27:01PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
That seems excessive and it probably ought to go in as a bug fix
afterwards. Given that it's just an addition of data to the table I'd
expect we
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:42:02PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
I see. Well I'm not sure how. If we apply it to either ASoC or MFD and
other patches pertaining to that file subsequently appear, then
conflict is likely. As you know, the commonly used mitigation
It shouldn't be that likely, we're
20 matches
Mail list logo
