Hi,
On 21-04-2017 11:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:39:30PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> Maybe rename to "dwc-i2s.c" and "dwc-pcm.c" (as the folder is
>>> called "dwc") and let the module still be called "designware-i2s"?
>> Lubomir's patch keeps the
Hi,
On 21-04-2017 11:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:39:30PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> Maybe rename to "dwc-i2s.c" and "dwc-pcm.c" (as the folder is
>>> called "dwc") and let the module still be called "designware-i2s"?
>> Lubomir's patch keeps the
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:39:30PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Jose Abreu wrote:
> > Maybe rename to "dwc-i2s.c" and "dwc-pcm.c" (as the folder is
> > called "dwc") and let the module still be called "designware-i2s"?
> Lubomir's patch keeps the module name intact. My point is that rename
> of
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:39:30PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Jose Abreu wrote:
> > Maybe rename to "dwc-i2s.c" and "dwc-pcm.c" (as the folder is
> > called "dwc") and let the module still be called "designware-i2s"?
> Lubomir's patch keeps the module name intact. My point is that rename
> of
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:34:00 +0200,
Jose Abreu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 20-04-2017 21:24, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > So, I think Lubomir's change is right. But the patch subject and
> > description should be rephrased.
> >
> > One thing I don't like is the rename of the file. But in this
> >
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:34:00 +0200,
Jose Abreu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 20-04-2017 21:24, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > So, I think Lubomir's change is right. But the patch subject and
> > description should be rephrased.
> >
> > One thing I don't like is the rename of the file. But in this
> >
Hi,
On 20-04-2017 21:24, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> So, I think Lubomir's change is right. But the patch subject and
> description should be rephrased.
>
> One thing I don't like is the rename of the file. But in this
> particular case, it's unavoidable unless we rename the module name.
>
Maybe
Hi,
On 20-04-2017 21:24, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> So, I think Lubomir's change is right. But the patch subject and
> description should be rephrased.
>
> One thing I don't like is the rename of the file. But in this
> particular case, it's unavoidable unless we rename the module name.
>
Maybe
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:24:14PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think forcing this to be built in to the kernel (which is what the
> > commit message says the change is going to do) is an obviously bad
> > idea. Anything we add to the base kernel image needs to have a
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:24:14PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think forcing this to be built in to the kernel (which is what the
> > commit message says the change is going to do) is an obviously bad
> > idea. Anything we add to the base kernel image needs to have a
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:46:46 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>
> > What do you think Mark? If you want to keep the PCM as a module
> > then we will need to abstract this more, by reducing the
> > dependencies.
>
> I think forcing this to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:46:46 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>
> > What do you think Mark? If you want to keep the PCM as a module
> > then we will need to abstract this more, by reducing the
> > dependencies.
>
> I think forcing this to
12 matches
Mail list logo
