| Message ID | 20190105100606.6673-9-okaya@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 11:06 AM Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> wrote: > > After 'commit 5d32a66541c4 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without > CONFIG_PCI set")' dependencies on CONFIG_PCI that previously were > satisfied implicitly through dependencies on CONFIG_ACPI have to be > specified directly. This code relies on IOSF_MBI and IOSF_MBI depends > on PCI. For this reason, add a direct dependency on CONFIG_PCI to the > IOSF_MBI driver. > > Fixes: 5d32a66541c46 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without CONFIG_PCI set") > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> Sinan, I thought you received an ACK from Pierre-Louis on this one, didn't you? > --- > sound/soc/intel/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > index 99a62ba409df..bd9fd2035c55 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > +++ b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI > config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI > tristate "ACPI HiFi2 (Baytrail, Cherrytrail) Platforms" > default ACPI > - depends on X86 && ACPI > + depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI > select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI > select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM > select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH > -- Mark, assuming that the ACK above was given here, do you want me to take this patch or do you want to take care of it yourself?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:15:35PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 11:06 AM Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> wrote: > > Fixes: 5d32a66541c46 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without CONFIG_PCI set") > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> > Sinan, I thought you received an ACK from Pierre-Louis on this one, didn't you? Yes. I've also applied it already and it's *still* being sent without either a cover letter or the rest of the series :( Sinan: Please do not submit new versions of already applied patches, please submit incremental updates to the existing code. Modifying existing commits creates problems for other users building on top of those commits so it's best practice to only change pubished git commits if absolutely essential.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:15 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 11:06 AM Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > After 'commit 5d32a66541c4 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without > > CONFIG_PCI set")' dependencies on CONFIG_PCI that previously were > > satisfied implicitly through dependencies on CONFIG_ACPI have to be > > specified directly. This code relies on IOSF_MBI and IOSF_MBI depends > > on PCI. For this reason, add a direct dependency on CONFIG_PCI to the > > IOSF_MBI driver. > > > > Fixes: 5d32a66541c46 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without CONFIG_PCI set") > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> > > Sinan, I thought you received an ACK from Pierre-Louis on this one, didn't you? > Yes, there was an ack assuming that I fixed the ia64 kconfig. Since I didn't, I took it back. Later ia64 failure was fixed by another patchset and Pierre-Louis said "looks good to me". I didn't assume it was an ack unless explicitly stated. It might be good if Pierre-Louis acked this version instead. > > --- > > sound/soc/intel/Kconfig | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > > index 99a62ba409df..bd9fd2035c55 100644 > > --- a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > > +++ b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI > > config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI > > tristate "ACPI HiFi2 (Baytrail, Cherrytrail) Platforms" > > default ACPI > > - depends on X86 && ACPI > > + depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI > > select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI > > select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM > > select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH > > -- > > Mark, assuming that the ACK above was given here, do you want me to > take this patch or do you want to take care of it yourself?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:19 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:15:35PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 11:06 AM Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Fixes: 5d32a66541c46 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without CONFIG_PCI set") > > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> > > > Sinan, I thought you received an ACK from Pierre-Louis on this one, didn't you? > > Yes. I've also applied it already and it's *still* being sent without > either a cover letter or the rest of the series :( There is a cover letter but it is being sent to Linux-acpi and Linux-next only. https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10749203/ This means that you are not on either of these mailing lists. > > Sinan: > > Please do not submit new versions of already applied patches, please > submit incremental updates to the existing code. Modifying existing > commits creates problems for other users building on top of those > commits so it's best practice to only change pubished git commits if > absolutely essential. I apologize. I didn't realize that you applied this already. I'll drop this patch in case I need to submit a new revision.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:16:53AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:19 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > Yes. I've also applied it already and it's *still* being sent without > > either a cover letter or the rest of the series :( > There is a cover letter but it is being sent to Linux-acpi and Linux-next only. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10749203/ > This means that you are not on either of these mailing lists. No, it means that neither of those lists is going into my inbox directly - the cover letters really need to go through the same route as the patches to ensure that they're seen. People often read the lists at different times to their inbox, for example I prioritize reviewing things that are in my inbox and look at list traffic less frequently when my inbox is busy (as it tends to be most of the time). > I apologize. I didn't realize that you applied this already. I'll drop > this patch > in case I need to submit a new revision. You should have got this mail when it was applied: http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2019-January/143687.html
diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig index 99a62ba409df..bd9fd2035c55 100644 --- a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig +++ b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI tristate "ACPI HiFi2 (Baytrail, Cherrytrail) Platforms" default ACPI - depends on X86 && ACPI + depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH
After 'commit 5d32a66541c4 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without CONFIG_PCI set")' dependencies on CONFIG_PCI that previously were satisfied implicitly through dependencies on CONFIG_ACPI have to be specified directly. This code relies on IOSF_MBI and IOSF_MBI depends on PCI. For this reason, add a direct dependency on CONFIG_PCI to the IOSF_MBI driver. Fixes: 5d32a66541c46 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without CONFIG_PCI set") Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org> --- sound/soc/intel/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)