Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: SOF: topology: Add new DAI type entry for SOF_DAI_AMD_BT

[Cristian Ciocaltea]

On 12/14/23 15:15, Venkata Prasad Potturu wrote:
> 
> On 12/14/23 17:53, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>> On 12/11/23 07:58, Venkata Prasad Potturu wrote:
>>> On 12/10/23 21:20, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/23 16:01, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/10/23 11:51, Venkata Prasad Potturu wrote:
>>>>>>> This should send to SOF git repo for rewiew, once SOF reviewers
>>>>>>> approved
>>>>>>> this, again need to send to broonie git.
>>>>>>> All the changes in sound/soc/sof/ path should go to SOF git.
>>>>>> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the SOF dev workflow. So it's not
>>>>>> enough to have this patch cc-ed to
>>>>>> sound-open-firmware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
>>>>> The SOF people basically do their own thing in github at
>>>>>
>>>>>      https://github.com/thesofproject/linux
>>>>>
>>>>> with a github workflow and submit their patches upstream in batches a
>>>>> few times a release, however my understanding is that their
>>>>> workflow can
>>>>> cope with things going in directly upstream as well.
>>>> Thanks for clarifying, Mark!  That would greatly simplify and speedup
>>>> the whole process, at least for trivial patches like this one.
>>> Hi Cristian,
>>>
>>> We have created a Pull request in SOF git hub for I2S BT support.
>>> please hold v2 version SOF patches till below PR get's merged.
>>> PR:- https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/4742
>> Hi Venkata,
>>
>> If this is going to be handled via the github workflow, this patch
>> should be removed from the series.  Since there is no dependency on it,
>> I cannot see a reason to put v2 on hold.
>>
>> Do I miss something?
> Non-sof driver related patches can directly send to broonie git ad v2
> series.
> SOF driver patches should send to SOF github to avoid merge conflicts
> as  per guidelines of SOF community.

Honestly, I don't really see a high risk of conflicts, the patches are
not that complex and can be simply cherry-picked when needed.  Moreover,
as we already had people reviewing this, splitting this up will only add
confusion and unnecessary burden.

Are there any specific changes you are concerned about and cannot be
really handled here?