Em 17-10-2010 21:36, Andy Walls escreveu: > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 19:20 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I did a large effort during this weekend to handle the maximum amount of >> patches, in order to have them >> ready for 2.6.37. While there are still some patches marked as NEW at >> patchwork, and a few pending pull >> requests (mostly related to more kABI changes), there are still a list of >> patches that are marked as >> Under review. Except for 4 patches from me, related to Doc (that I'm keeping >> in this list just to remind >> me that I'll need to fix them when I have some time - just some automation >> stuff at DocBook), all other >> patches marked as Under review are stuff that I basically depend on others. >> >> The last time I sent this list, I was about to travel, and I may have missed >> some comments, or maybe I >> may just forgot to update. But I suspect that, for the list bellow, most of >> them are stuff where the >> driver maintainer just forgot at limbo. >> >> >From the list of patches under review, we have: >> >> Waiting for new patch, signed, from Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com> >> Apr,25 2010: Problem with cx25840 and Terratec Grabster AV400 >> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/94960 Sven Barth >> <pascaldra...@googlemail.com> > > Sven, > > We need a "Signed-off-by: " for your submitted patch: > > http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Submitting_Patches#Sign_your_work > > Note, your patch has an obvious, unintentional white space change for > "if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_JP)", so could you fix that up and send a > new signed off version? > > > Mauro, > > This patch makes obvious sense to me: don't perform audio register > updates on a chip that doesn't have an audio processing block. Sven's > approach was based on my recommended approach, after his initial > discovery on how to get his audio working. > > Do we really need an S.O.B for something that appears to be common > sense, and wouldn't have been implemented any other way, even if I had > implemented it?
The original patch were in the middle of a discussion, no proper description, bad whitespacing, etc. It is better to let the patch author to fix those issues, as they learn more about how to submit a patch. Anyway, I agree with you, the patch is obvious, and can proceed without the SOB. I did the usual CodingStyle fixups, put part of your above comment as the patch description, together with your ack and moved it forward. One patch less on my queue ;) Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
