On Saturday 27 June 2009 00:05:48 m-kariche...@ti.com wrote:
> From: Muralidharan Karicheri
>
> Following are the changes:-
> 1) moved i2c board specific part to sub device configuration
> structure so that sub device can be loaded from vpfe capture
> using the new v4l2_i2c_new_
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm355-evm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm355-evm.c
> > @@ -136,10 +136,66 @@ static void dm355evm_mmcsd_gpios(unsigned gpio)
> > dm355evm_mmc_gpios = gpio;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct tvp514x_platform_data tvp5146_pdata = {
> > - .clk_p
>> >
>> > -static struct tvp514x_platform_data tvp5146_pdata = {
>> > - .clk_polarity = 0,
>> > - .hs_polarity = 1,
>> > - .vs_polarity = 1
>
>Clearly this patch is against neither mainline nor the
>current DaVinci GIT tree... I suggest reissuing against
>mainline, now that it's got mo
On Monday 29 June 2009, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > -static struct tvp514x_platform_data tvp5146_pdata = {
> >> > - .clk_polarity = 0,
> >> > - .hs_polarity = 1,
> >> > - .vs_polarity = 1
> >
> >Clearly this patch is against neither mainline nor the
> >current DaVinc
>> >
>>
>> That is because, I have my first (vpfe capture version v3)
>> patch lined up for merge to upstream/davinci git kernel ...
>>
>> >>NOTE: Depends on v3 version of vpfe capture driver patch
>>
>> What is your suggestion in such cases?
>
>Always submit against mainline. In the handfull of
On Monday 29 June 2009, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
> I think you didn't get my point. We have patches that are in
> the pipeline waiting for merge that is neither available in
> the upstream nor in the DaVinci tree.
The linux-media pipeline. Sure. I'm quite familiar with
what it means to hav
>> to the DaVinci tree and then creating new patches based on
>> that. That is why my note clearly says " Depends on v3 version
>> of vpfe capture driver patch"
>
>Maybe you're not getting my point: that submitting a patch
>series against mainline (or almost-mainline) means you don't
>trip across
On Tuesday 30 June 2009, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
> The code that I am developing is most up to date and is written
> against the latest tree.
If you insist. Regardless, the $SUBJECT patch had some
significant problems (against current code) and should
not merge.
Hi,
>
>If you insist. Regardless, the $SUBJECT patch had some
>significant problems (against current code) and should
>not merge.
>
>
I had accepted your comment already :(
Murali
___
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
Davinci-linux-open-source@lin
