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
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 be built in to the kernel (which is what the
commit message says the
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 be built in to the kernel (which is what the
commit message says the
On 19-04-2017 17:14, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 17:12 +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> Hi Lubomir,
>>
>>
>> On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
>>>
I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It
On 19-04-2017 17:14, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 17:12 +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> Hi Lubomir,
>>
>>
>> On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
>>>
I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 17:12 +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
> Hi Lubomir,
>
>
> On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks
> > > tightly
> > > coupled with
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 17:12 +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
> Hi Lubomir,
>
>
> On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks
> > > tightly
> > > coupled with
Hi Lubomir,
On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
>
>> I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks tightly
>> coupled with designware_i2s: you can either disable designware_pcm
>> altogether at build time or
Hi Lubomir,
On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
>
>> I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks tightly
>> coupled with designware_i2s: you can either disable designware_pcm
>> altogether at build time or
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks tightly
> coupled with designware_i2s: you can either disable designware_pcm
> altogether at build time or always load it together with
> designware_i2s.
Yes, they're
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks tightly
> coupled with designware_i2s: you can either disable designware_pcm
> altogether at build time or always load it together with
> designware_i2s.
Yes, they're
On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 16:18 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > It makes not sense: the whether the PIO PCM extension is used is
> > hardcoded to the designware_i2s driver and designware_pcm doesn't
> > have any module metadata, causing a
On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 16:18 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > It makes not sense: the whether the PIO PCM extension is used is
> > hardcoded to the designware_i2s driver and designware_pcm doesn't
> > have any module metadata, causing a
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> It makes not sense: the whether the PIO PCM extension is used is
> hardcoded to the designware_i2s driver and designware_pcm doesn't
> have any module metadata, causing a kernel taint:
>
> [ 44.287000] designware_pcm: module
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> It makes not sense: the whether the PIO PCM extension is used is
> hardcoded to the designware_i2s driver and designware_pcm doesn't
> have any module metadata, causing a kernel taint:
>
> [ 44.287000] designware_pcm: module
It makes not sense: the whether the PIO PCM extension is used is
hardcoded to the designware_i2s driver and designware_pcm doesn't
have any module metadata, causing a kernel taint:
[ 44.287000] designware_pcm: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel
It makes not sense: the whether the PIO PCM extension is used is
hardcoded to the designware_i2s driver and designware_pcm doesn't
have any module metadata, causing a kernel taint:
[ 44.287000] designware_pcm: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel
---
28 matches
Mail list logo
