(As for the thread, which got flamy, let's put it to rest, and Ola:
we are all impressed with your work on the ux500 ALSA SoC
driver, no doubt about that, this was all ever about the DT
patch set.)
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Ola Lilja wrote:
> Linus W. could probably shed some light of
(As for the thread, which got flamy, let's put it to rest, and Ola:
we are all impressed with your work on the ux500 ALSA SoC
driver, no doubt about that, this was all ever about the DT
patch set.)
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Ola Lilja olali...@yahoo.se wrote:
Linus W. could probably
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:30:10AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> I do agree that it should be correct, but the difference between getting
> it 90% correct and absolutely perfect increases the effort at least x2.
> With so much left to do, I think it would be better to get everything in
> and
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:56:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:45:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > Over time, the requests for Maintainers have Snowballed (pun intended). My
> > task now seems to be enabling drivers for Device Tree _and_ fix all
> > associated driver
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:56:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:45:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Over time, the requests for Maintainers have Snowballed (pun intended). My
task now seems to be enabling drivers for Device Tree _and_ fix all
associated driver bugs,
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:30:10AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
I do agree that it should be correct, but the difference between getting
it 90% correct and absolutely perfect increases the effort at least x2.
With so much left to do, I think it would be better to get everything in
and functioning,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:45:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Over time, the requests for Maintainers have Snowballed (pun intended). My
> task now seems to be enabling drivers for Device Tree _and_ fix all
> associated driver bugs, including any requested restructuring and API
One thing to
Patch withdrawn.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
> a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
> solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
> to
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:58:24AM +0200, Ola Lilja wrote:
> Accusing me of having "no interest in fixing the driver" is just absurd
> regarding the time I've spent on this. I'm also still driving for
Sorry, this is more directed at the current round of fixes that are
being sent than the driver
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:41:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > > >It's very disappointing to see such an error exist, and even more
> > > >disappointing that there's no
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com]
> Sent: den 1 augusti 2012 15:20
> To: Lee Jones
> Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> stericsson_nomadik_li...@list.st.com; linus.wall...@stericsson.com;
>
-Original Message-
From: Mark Brown [mailto:broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com]
Sent: den 1 augusti 2012 15:20
To: Lee Jones
Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
stericsson_nomadik_li...@list.st.com; linus.wall...@stericsson.com;
a...@arndb.de;
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:41:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
It's very disappointing to see such an error exist, and even more
disappointing that there's no interest in
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:58:24AM +0200, Ola Lilja wrote:
Accusing me of having no interest in fixing the driver is just absurd
regarding the time I've spent on this. I'm also still driving for
Sorry, this is more directed at the current round of fixes that are
being sent than the driver
Patch withdrawn.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
to add
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:45:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Over time, the requests for Maintainers have Snowballed (pun intended). My
task now seems to be enabling drivers for Device Tree _and_ fix all
associated driver bugs, including any requested restructuring and API
One thing to bear
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > >It's very disappointing to see such an error exist, and even more
> > >disappointing that there's no interest in fixing the driver.
> > This is incorrect. I'm sure the
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> I am under the impression that it was tested. Perhaps before it was
> rebased, but tests were completed. Ola was very surprised when I
> told him there were link failures. The only issue is that I only
> found out and told him a day
On 01/08/12 14:20, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 16:18, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not going to apply this patch. This isn't a vendor BSP, we
shouldn't be putting random hacks like this in core code.
BSP kernel or otherwise, it still
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 31/07/12 16:18, Mark Brown wrote:
> >I'm not going to apply this patch. This isn't a vendor BSP, we
> >shouldn't be putting random hacks like this in core code.
> BSP kernel or otherwise, it still seems wrong to me to fail and
>
On 31/07/12 16:18, Mark Brown wrote:
It's certainly totally inappropriate for an "urgent" bugfix.
Well it just means that audio won't work for the ux500 for this
kernel release, but as we're waiting on clocks, this isn't a big
issue for us. If you do take it (with or without the return code),
On 31/07/12 16:18, Mark Brown wrote:
It's certainly totally inappropriate for an urgent bugfix.
Well it just means that audio won't work for the ux500 for this
kernel release, but as we're waiting on clocks, this isn't a big
issue for us. If you do take it (with or without the return code),
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 16:18, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not going to apply this patch. This isn't a vendor BSP, we
shouldn't be putting random hacks like this in core code.
BSP kernel or otherwise, it still seems wrong to me to fail and
entire
On 01/08/12 14:20, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 16:18, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not going to apply this patch. This isn't a vendor BSP, we
shouldn't be putting random hacks like this in core code.
BSP kernel or otherwise, it still
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
I am under the impression that it was tested. Perhaps before it was
rebased, but tests were completed. Ola was very surprised when I
told him there were link failures. The only issue is that I only
found out and told him a day before
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
It's very disappointing to see such an error exist, and even more
disappointing that there's no interest in fixing the driver.
This is incorrect. I'm sure the driver will
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 04:15:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 31/07/12 15:54, Mark Brown wrote:
> >You might want to look at a better mail program.
> Willingly. Any good suggestions?
mutt works for me.
> >It's certainly totally inappropriate for an "urgent" bugfix.
> Well it just means that
On 31/07/12 15:54, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Neither of those are in my Inbox. Blame Mozilla. :)
You might want to look at a better mail program.
Willingly. Any good suggestions?
It's better because the whole audio system doesn't fail in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Neither of those are in my Inbox. Blame Mozilla. :)
You might want to look at a better mail program.
> It's better because the whole audio system doesn't fail in the case
> of minor failure. It'd be like calling off a football game
On 31/07/12 15:28, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
You're posting this *again* without bothering to respond to my review
comments.
I didn't see any comments on this.
Read your email.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 31/07/12 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> >You're posting this *again* without bothering to respond to my review
> >comments.
> I didn't see any comments on this.
Read your email. <20120726115450.ge3...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
and
On 31/07/12 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
> a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
> solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
> to add the rest of
If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
to add the rest of the list.
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
---
sound/soc/soc-dapm.c |2
If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
to add the rest of the list.
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
to add the rest of the
On 31/07/12 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
You're posting this *again* without bothering to respond to my review
comments.
I didn't see any comments on this.
Read your email. 20120726115450.ge3...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
and
On 31/07/12 15:28, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
You're posting this *again* without bothering to respond to my review
comments.
I didn't see any comments on this.
Read your email.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Neither of those are in my Inbox. Blame Mozilla. :)
You might want to look at a better mail program.
It's better because the whole audio system doesn't fail in the case
of minor failure. It'd be like calling off a football game (or
On 31/07/12 15:54, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Neither of those are in my Inbox. Blame Mozilla. :)
You might want to look at a better mail program.
Willingly. Any good suggestions?
It's better because the whole audio system doesn't fail in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 04:15:23PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 31/07/12 15:54, Mark Brown wrote:
You might want to look at a better mail program.
Willingly. Any good suggestions?
mutt works for me.
It's certainly totally inappropriate for an urgent bugfix.
Well it just means that audio
42 matches
Mail list logo
