[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4774f65a7f2f464781a45790c8934a62@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:45:38 +0000
From: "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Łukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
CC: Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
Mateusz Gorski <mateusz.gorski@...ux.intel.com>,
Radoslaw Biernacki <rad@...ihalf.com>,
"Alex Levin" <levinale@...gle.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Amadeusz Sławiński
<amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Check the kcontrol against NULL
On 2021-01-20 5:41 PM, Rojewski, Cezary wrote:
>
> Just checked the history behind this. And must say, I liked Ricardo's
> version better. Except for the "= {};" bit which Mark already pointed
> out - it should be a separate fix - it's simply more optional
Meant to say: optimal.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists