On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Robert Elz wrote:

>     Date:        Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:31:52 +0200
>     From:        "Ian McIntosh" <ianm@cat.co.za>
>     Message-ID:  <06e701c3617d$ba8b3f40$7922a8c0@ryan>
>
>   | I have two questions: Firstly I am concerned as to the impact of this
>   | ''hack". I think it should not really affect much else but would like
>   | the experts opinions.
>
> Not really a hack, just a back porting of a feature to an earlier version.
> And no, that shouldn't affect anything else (if your audio is working,
> you'll be fine).

Agreed. It's really back-porting, which is fine.

>   | Secondly I was wondering when the 1.6 branch of cvs will be updated to
>   | include the fix for this audio device?
>
> This is someone else's call - but perhaps sometime, perhaps never (support
> for new stuff doesn't always get added to older systems).   I suspect it
> largely depends upon how much work someone is willing to do to demonstrate
> that it works, and exactly what is needed to make it integrate smoothly.
>
> And then send a PR with the changes and a request for a pullup to the
> 1.6 branch.

So Ian, I'd suggest filing a PR with your change. Actually, if the only
change you made to rev 1.17 -> 1.18 was to remove some PCI IDs, I'd
suggest instead finding the revision that added them, and add it to the
update request. That way the change to 1.6 will be the full 1.17 -> 1.18
change, and will add support for other cards too.

The fact you've tested it makes the change more-likely to get pulled into
the 1.6 branch. :-)

Take care,

Bill