On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:43 PM <matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 10:12:07AM -0500, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Convert the device tree bindings for the Altera Root Port PCIe controller
from text to YAML. Update the entries in the interrupt-map field to have
the correct number of address cells for the interrupt parent.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v8:
v2 or v8 or ??? I'm confused and tools will be too.
Sorry for the confusion. Patch 1 and patch 2 were individually reviewed
previously. Patch 1 was previously reviewed up to v8, and I included them
in the greater patch set for convience and completeness, and this is v2 of
the entire patch set.
How should this be handled for better clarity? Would it be better to not
to include Patch 1 and 2 in the patch set and refer to them, or would it
better to remove the history in patch 1 and 2, or something else?
Generally, if you added new patches you keep the versioning and say
"vN: new patch" in the new patches.
Thanks for the clarification on the proper way to handle this.
If this was 2 prior series, combined, there's not really a good answer
other than don't do that.
Understood, I won't combine prior series in the future.
Rob
Krzysztof Wilczyński has applied patch 1 and patch 2 to linux-next. Should
I resubmit the patch set minus patch 1 and 2? There would be no changes to
patches 3-7. Do I keep the v2, or should it be bumped to v3?
Thanks,
Matthew Gerlach
