On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 22:12:11 +1030 Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27/10/23 21:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 27/10/2023 10:42, Subhajit Ghosh wrote: > >> 4. Conor reviewed the patch and said that it would be better that I handle all > >> these operations in apds9306 driver (this) patch series rather than submitting > >> a new patch. > >> "Ahh apologies then. The best course of action would likely be to include > >> the patch merging the two bindings in your series adding the third user." > >> 5. As per this patch series -- RFC->v0->v1-v2 > > > > RFC was the first version sent to mailing list. So after RFC there is > > second version - v2. This is v4. > > Acknowledging all your other comments. Appreciate your time and effort in reviewing > this. One last question on this - So what version should I use for the patchset > which I will submit next - "v3" or "v5" in the Subject of the emails? Go with v5 and play it safe given possible confusion. Numbering when there has previously been one or more RFC versions is always rather confusing, but we tend not to have a v0! So RFC-> v1 -> v2 -> V3 would have been fine in my opinion, or RFC -> V2 -> v3 With a note in v2 cover letter saying changes from RFC to make it clear there was not a separate v1. Jonathan > > Regards, > Subhajit Ghosh >
