| Message ID | 20240421204707.2487686-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ALSA: emu10k1: fixes related to uploading firmware to the E-MU dock | expand |
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:46:57 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > patches 1-3 & 5 fix the regression(s), patch 4 fixes a related pre-existing > problem, while patches 6-10 are "only" improvements. > > i don't think it really makes sense to revert fbb64eedf5a3 (ALSA: emu10k1: make > E-MU dock monitoring interrupt-driven) and re-do things from scratch, as we'd > also need to revert the unrelated c960b012ec47 (ALSA: emu10k1: track loss of > external clock on E-MU cards) first. > > so i'd just go with the series as-is, and cherry-pick the four (or preferably > five) patches to stable. If a few of the series are rather regression fixes that should be merged to Linus tree sooner, please separate them and send two patch sets instead. I don't see Fixes tag in the patch 2, for example, so I'm not sure whether I should pick up. Also, your Fixes tag usage is incorrect. It should be Fixes: $ID ("subject...") while yours missing the quotes. Some people are picky about those formats, so let's be strict. Could you resubmit two patch sets with those corrections? thanks, Takashi > > --- > > the series (and a bunch of failed experiments) is fully tested by pietro with > both rev1 and rev2 1010 cards, a 0202 cardbus card, and their respective docks. > he'll get permanent testing credits in the card capability table later on (if > he so wishes), so i didn't bother adding a tested-by footer to each patch. > > Oswald Buddenhagen (10): > ALSA: emu10k1: fix E-MU card dock presence monitoring > ALSA: emu10k1: factor out snd_emu1010_load_dock_firmware() > ALSA: emu10k1: move the whole GPIO event handling to the workqueue > ALSA: emu10k1: use mutex for E-MU FPGA access locking > ALSA: emu10k1: fix E-MU dock initialization > ALSA: emu10k1: simplify E-MU card FPGA reset sequence > ALSA: emu10k1: make snd_emu1010_load_firmware_entry() void > ALSA: emu10k1: move entering E-MU card FPGA programming mode > ALSA: emu10k1: move snd_emu1010_load_firmware_entry() to io.c > ALSA: emu10k1: make E-MU FPGA writes potentially more reliable > > include/sound/emu10k1.h | 8 +- > sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1.c | 3 +- > sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c | 225 +++++++++++++------------------ > sound/pci/emu10k1/emumixer.c | 18 ++- > sound/pci/emu10k1/emuproc.c | 9 ++ > sound/pci/emu10k1/io.c | 104 ++++++++++---- > 6 files changed, 195 insertions(+), 172 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.44.0.701.g2cf7baacf3.dirty >
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: >On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:46:57 +0200, >Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> >> patches 1-3 & 5 fix the regression(s), patch 4 fixes a related pre-existing >> problem, while patches 6-10 are "only" improvements. >> >If a few of the series are rather regression fixes that should be >merged to Linus tree sooner, please separate them and send two patch >sets instead. > i can't give more precise instructions than above; it's a judgment call whether you consider patch 4 urgent enough (it's a fix, but not for a recently introduced regression; nonetheless, i've seen less important patches from me be picked to stable). i'd just split the series in half. >I don't see Fixes tag in the patch 2, for example, so >I'm not sure whether I should pick up. > as the commit message says, it's preparatory refactoring for patch 3, so it's not a fix, but a mandatory dependency for one. >Also, your Fixes tag usage is incorrect. It should be > Fixes: $ID ("subject...") >while yours missing the quotes. Some people are picky about those >formats, so let's be strict. > fair enough.