Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Intel: ASoC: remove duplicated code on merge

PATCH In review [email protected] 2 participants 3 messages Mar 16, 2015 – Mar 17, 2015

Subsystems (3)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 Intel: ASoC: remove duplicated code on merge

From: "Lu, Han" <[email protected]>

sound/soc/intel/sst-haswell-ipc.c +0 -5
index d4865a6..43fb5f3 100644
@@ -2363,11 +2363,6 @@ int sst_hsw_dsp_init(struct device *dev, struct sst_pdata *pdata)
 	/* init param buffer */
 	sst_hsw_reset_param_buf(hsw);
 
-	/* allocate scratch mem regions */
-	ret = sst_block_alloc_scratch(hsw->dsp);
-	if (ret < 0)
-		goto boot_err;
-
 	/* wait for DSP boot completion */
 	sst_dsp_boot(hsw->dsp);
 	ret = wait_event_timeout(hsw->boot_wait, hsw->boot_complete,
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:46:29PM +0800, [email protected] wrote:

From: "Lu, Han" <[email protected]>

Please include a commit description explaining what the problem you're trying to fix is (like where the two different copies came from). I've tweaked the way the merges are being done which I think has stopped this happening, can you check please?

author
#2 lore raw

Hi Mark,

My patch was trying to fix the error introduced by commit 527cab6 in branch for-next, where the code block of "allocate scratch mem regions" appears twice.
However, I see the issue has been fixed and no duplicated code found in latest branch, so my patch is not required anymore, please ignore it. Thanks.

BR,
Han Lu

Quoted 16 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Brown [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 7:01 PM
To: Lu, Han
Cc: [email protected]; Girdwood, Liam R
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Intel: ASoC: remove duplicated code on merge

Quoted 3 lines · On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:46:29PM +0800, [email protected] wrote:

From: "Lu, Han" <[email protected]>

Please include a commit description explaining what the problem you're trying to fix is (like where the two different copies came from). I've tweaked the way the merges are being done which I think has stopped this happening, can you check please?