Em Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:28:35 +0300 Antti Palosaari <cr...@iki.fi> escreveu:
> On 09/24/2012 03:23 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:08:17 +0300 > > Antti Palosaari <cr...@iki.fi> escreveu: > > > >> On 09/24/2012 02:17 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >>> Em Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:23:48 +0300 > >>> Antti Palosaari <cr...@iki.fi> escreveu: > >>> > >>>> Use .get_if_frequency() as all used tuner drivers > >>>> (mt2060/qt1010/mxl5005s) supports it. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Antti Palosaari <cr...@iki.fi> > >>> > >>>> @@ -240,26 +237,6 @@ static int rtl2830_init(struct dvb_frontend *fe) > >>>> if (ret) > >>>> goto err; > >>>> > >>>> - num = priv->cfg.if_dvbt % priv->cfg.xtal; > >>>> - num *= 0x400000; > >>>> - num = div_u64(num, priv->cfg.xtal); > >>>> - num = -num; > >>>> - if_ctl = num & 0x3fffff; > >>>> - dev_dbg(&priv->i2c->dev, "%s: if_ctl=%08x\n", __func__, if_ctl); > >>>> - > >>>> - ret = rtl2830_rd_reg_mask(priv, 0x119, &tmp, 0xc0); /* b[7:6] */ > >>>> - if (ret) > >>>> - goto err; > >>>> - > >>>> - buf[0] = tmp << 6; > >>>> - buf[0] |= (if_ctl >> 16) & 0x3f; > >>>> - buf[1] = (if_ctl >> 8) & 0xff; > >>>> - buf[2] = (if_ctl >> 0) & 0xff; > >>> > >>> Patch applied, but there was a context difference above: > >>> > >>> --- a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2830.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2830.c > >>> @@ -182,9 +182,6 @@ static int rtl2830_init(struct dvb_frontend *fe) > >>> @@ -28,7 +50,7 @@ index eca1d72..3954760 100644 > >>> - goto err; > >>> - > >>> - buf[0] = tmp << 6; > >>> -- buf[0] = (if_ctl >> 16) & 0x3f; > >>> +- buf[0] |= (if_ctl >> 16) & 0x3f; > >>> - buf[1] = (if_ctl >> 8) & 0xff; > >>> - buf[2] = (if_ctl >> 0) & 0xff; > >>> - > >>> > >>> (that's the diff between the patch applied and your original one) > >> > >> Because of that: > >> > >> http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/14066/ > > > > That's why I ask driver maintainers to send me pull requests, instead of > > sending long series of patches at the mailing list, and tagging the patches > > for review at ML as RFC: it is not warranted that the patches will be merged > > at the order they're sent to the mailing list. > > Do you mean I start again review & pick those patches myself from the > mailing list and pull-request then from git tree? It is fine for me. > > How about my own patches for my own drivers. Should I sent those to the > mailing list and then pull-request via git? If yes, is there some tag > which could be used to inform that this patch will be pull-requested via > git tree? What I mean is that the better is for you to apply the patches for your driver on your tree (your patches and the ones from the others you acked). Then, from time to time[1], send me pull requests from the branch that contains them. That warrants that I'll apply the patches at the right order, and that I won't forget anything. As your patches also need to be reviewed, you can tag them as "RFC". [1] Don't accumulate too many patches there... finding time to review a series of 5-10 patches is easier than to review 20-30 patches. Thanks, 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
