[PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on sound/soc/fsl

[Shawn Guo]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:44:15AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:17:58AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:39:05AM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> 
> > > That's not what Mark is talking about.  You somehow posted patch 0/6 as a 
> > > reply to the *previous* patchset, so the two patchsets were merged into 
> > > one email thread.
> 
> > Sorry, you and Mark are not listening to Shawn.  Even worse, you're
> > telling Shawn that what he's trying to explain to you is not the point
> > when it is actually the whole point.
> 
> > The "[PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on sound/soc/fsl" was posted as a
> > follow-up to "[PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ".
> 
> > So, the "*previous* patchset" _was_ "[PATCH 1/4] ASoC: imx: let
> > SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ" and not some other random patch set.  That
> > is a fundamental fact, which can't be argued.  Anyone can verify it, and
> > it can be verified by checking the email headers.
> 
> No, I get that it's a new version of the same patch set

I know it's confusing.  But "[PATCH 0/6] ASoC: a few cleanups on
sound/soc/fsl" is not a new version of the series "[PATCH 1/4] ASoC:
imx: let SND_MXC_SOC_FIQ select FIQ".  Instead, it's a follow-up
series which depends on previously posted patches.

Anyway, I will stop doing that to confuse people.

Regards,
Shawn

> rather than a
> totally unrelated patch set that was followed up to - I'd still rather
> it weren't posted like that as the threading ends up being less helpful
> than is desirable.