Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:11:13 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ASoC: samsung: s3c24xx-i2s: Fix typo in DAIFMT handling | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 27/06/2022 13:45, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:49:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 27/06/2022 11:43, Charles Keepax wrote: >>> The conversion of the set_fmt callback to direct clock specification >>> included a small typo, correct the affected code. > >>> Fixes: 91c49199e6d6 ("ASoC: samsung: Update to use set_fmt_new callback") > >> Where is this commit from? It's not in next. > > 0b491c7c1b2555ef08285fd49a8567f2f9f34ff8 - if you can't find something > search for the subject, people often get things wrong.
Finding it by subject does not solve problem with Fixes tag, that it might be pointing to incorrect commit (e.g. rebased).
> >> You should put such big patchsets in your own repo (e.g. on >> Github/Gitlab) and feed it to linux-next or at least to LKP. > > The size of the patch set isn't really relevant here, the same issue can > apply to anything that can be built in more than one configuration. > People should of course try to do things that work but equally we > shouldn't be putting procedural blockers in place, we have integration > trees for a reason.
I would say that size of the patchset is a proof someone is doing bigger work and we want the bigger work to be tested even before hitting maintainer's tree.
My comment was not a requirement (procedural blocker) but a suggestion, because maybe Charles was not aware that developer trees can be tested for free.
> >> This way you would get build coverage... because it seems the build was >> missing in your case. > > That coverage has apparently also been missing in -next for several > weeks.
Eh, it seems defconfigs for this old platform do not select sound, so we rely on randconfig. :(
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |