linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ASoC: SOF: mediatek: Add mt8195 dsp clock support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 19:56:04 +0200
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     YC Hung <yc.hung@...iatek.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>, trevor.wu@...iatek.com,
        allen-kh.cheng@...iatek.com,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ASoC: SOF: mediatek: Add mt8195 dsp clock support

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 8:00 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:57:36PM +0800, YC Hung wrote:
> > Add adsp clock on/off support on mt8195 platform.
> >
> > Acked-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
> > Signed-off-by: YC Hung <yc.hung@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> >  sound/soc/sof/mediatek/adsp_helper.h       |   2 +-
>
> This doesn't apply against current code, there's no such file upstream.
> Please check and resend.

This patch was sent only to get an Ack-by for 2/2 from Rob Herring.
The patch will go first to SOF tree and then I will
send you a patch based on your for-next branch.

YC sorry for not being more explicit. I think the right way was to
mark this patch series as [RFC PATCH].