Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

[Takashi Iwai]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:33:48 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> It seems then that you can not get the kind of information you might be looking for
> >> at the moment from me (alone).
> > 
> > No, the patch itself speaks.
> 
> Are we still trying to clarify (only) two possible update steps
> for this software module?

No.

> > If you get more reviewed-by from others, it means already it's safer
> > to apply.  Then I can take it.
> 
> How are the statistics for such tags in the sound subsystem?

Just like other subsystems, with usual reviewed-by tags.

> > But without that, it's obviously no material to take.
> 
> Thanks for such an explanation of your current view.
> 
> 
> >> I hope that mailing list readers could offer something.
> > 
> > Let's hope.
> 
> Are any additional communication interfaces helpful?

No idea.

> >> Did this software module become âtoo oldâ?
> > 
> > Mostly the hardware is too old,
> 
> Which time frames have you got in mind for acceptable software maintenance?

It's not a question to me but to users.

> > or the change itself isn't interesting enough.
> 
> This is another general possibility.
> 
> 
> >> Can higher level transformation patterns become easier to accept
> >> by any other means?
> > 
> > Only if it's assured to work and not to break anything else.
> 
> Have you got any steps in mind for an improved âfeelingâ or âassuranceâ?

Just do proper testing.  Either on a real hardware or on a VM.

> >> How much does the omission of such an useful development tool
> >> influence your concerns?
> > 
> > Can't judge unless I really see / use it.
> 
> I find that there are some options to consider.
> 
> >> Would you like to improve the software situation in any ways there?
> > 
> > I *hope*, but only when it's not too annoying.
> 
> Under which circumstances are you going to start working with a continuous
> integration system?

It's irrelevant, don't side-step.


Takashi