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

From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
	Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:53:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <s5h7euaqwtp.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7189a7c-3b07-e976-ac18-6143365bbd21@users.sourceforge.net>

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:44:07 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> How would such a setting influence my trust level for your subsystem maintenance?
> > 
> > Give the test result before speaking too much.
> 
> Which concrete data do you expect here?

Depends on the result.  The bottom line is that you run your patched
kernel on the real hardware or equivalent (VM or emulation) for the
device you touched.

> > It's already way too contra-productive, just chatting.
> 
> I got an other view.
> 
> I hope that we can achieve a better common understanding also in this case.

Hopefully, if you stop asking another new question for each word.

> > Show the result at first.
> 
> Which one would you like to compare exactly?

Run your patched kernel and the driver code on the real machine with
the corresponding device.  Show the device is running.  That's the
very first step.  Then follow the more detailed tests, but it depends
on the subsystem.

Takashi