RE: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Add bindings for adp1051, adp1055 and ltp8800

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 2:39 AM
> To: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Encarnacion, Cedric justine <Cedricjustine.Encarnacion@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-hwmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>;
> Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring
> <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley
> <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sabau, Radu bogdan <Radu.Sabau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Uwe
> Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Torreno, Alexis Czezar
> <AlexisCzezar.Torreno@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Add bindings
> for adp1051, adp1055 and ltp8800
> 
> [External]
> 
> On 20/11/2024 19:07, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/20/24 09:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 20/11/2024 18:11, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:58:25AM +0800, Cedric Encarnacion wrote:
> >>>> add dt-bindings for adp1051, adp1055, and ltp8800 pmbus.
> >>>>      ADP1051: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Temperature
> >>>>      ADP1055: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Power, Temperature
> >>>>      LTP8800-1A/-2/-4A: 150A/135A/200A DC/DC µModule Regulator
> >>>>
> >>>> Co-developed-by: Alexis Czezar Torreno
> <alexisczezar.torreno@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexis Czezar Torreno <alexisczezar.torreno@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cedric Encarnacion
> <cedricjustine.encarnacion@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Why did you drop my ack?
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241106-
> linoleum-kebab-
> decf14f54f76@spud/__;!!A3Ni8CS0y2Y!7Q2KluGdg8cJW_wYUd-
> vh5mP66Ns62VZOkPG4Jf7NY9ULtTfjiwYqrUHbik_tI9X4izI6fAQS_7eVscdEFK_X
> OEm$
> >> So that's a v2? Or v3? Then should be marked correctly. Please start
> >> using b4. I already asked analog.com for this in few cases. Feel free
> >> not to use b4 if you send correct patches, but this is not the case here.
> >>

Okay, I will start exploring b4 for future patches.

> >
> > In general I agree, but this is a combination of two patch series, as mentioned
> > in the summary. I am not sure how to use versioning in such situations. Is it
> > v2 of one series or v3 of the other ?
> I would say the highest and keep the b4 changeset. This allows to use b4
> diff easily. Choice done here - v1, no usage of b4  - breaks everything,
> look:
> 
> b4 diff '<20241120035826.3920-1-cedricjustine.encarnacion@xxxxxxxxxx>'
> Grabbing thread from
> lore.kernel.org/all/20241120035826.3920-1-
> cedricjustine.encarnacion@xxxxxxxxxx/t.mbox.gz
> ---
> Analyzing 13 messages in the thread
> Could not find lower series to compare against.

This is v2 of one and v3 of another. For the upcoming versions, should I
proceed to v4 which succeeds the highest or continue to v2 based on this
series?

Regards,
Cedric





[Index of Archives]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux