Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
Thanks for the feedback.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1 0/8] Convert DA906{1,2} bindings to json-schema
>
> On 06/12/2023 12:16, Biju Das wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:06 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1 0/8] Convert DA906{1,2} bindings to
> >> json-schema
> >>
> >> On 04/12/2023 18:25, Biju Das wrote:
> >>> Convert the below bindings to json-schema
> >>> 1) DA906{1,2} mfd bindings
> >>> 2) DA906{1,2,3} onkey bindings
> >>> 3) DA906{1,2,3} thermal bindings
> >>>
> >>> Also add fallback for DA9061 watchdog device and document
> >>> DA9063 watchdog device.
> >>>
> >>> v3->v3.1:
> >>> * Patch#1 is merge of patch#1 from v2 + patch#8 from v2.
> >>> * Dropped comment for d9061 watchdog fallback
> >>> * Replaced enum->const for dlg,da9061-watchdog and its fallback.
> >>> * Restored patch#4 in series 1 and dropped the thermal example
> >>> * Added Ack from Conor Dooley for da9063 watchdog binding support.
> >>> * Updated title DA9062/61->DA906{1,2,3} as it supports DA9063.
> >>> * Retained Rb tag since the changes are trivial.
> >>> * Added Ack from Conor for updating watchdog property
> >>> * Dropped link to product information.
> >>> * Patch#5(onkey) is squashed with patch#6 and patch#9 from v2.
> >>> * Replaced enum->const for dlg,da9061-onkey and its fallback.
> >>> * Dropped example
> >>> * Restored the thermal binding patch from v2.
> >>> * Dropped example
> >>> * Replaced enum->const for compatible property.
> >>> * Added Rb tag from Rob and retained Rb tag as changes are trivial.
> >>> * Added Ack from Conor Dooley for patch#7.
> >>> * Split the thermal binding patch separate
> >>> * Updated the description
> >>
> >>
> >> Hundreds of changes and just "3 -> 3.1"? This does not make sense.
> >
> > Bot reported some issues with v2. So immediately I send v3 which
> > clashed with review comments from Conor and Rob.
> >
> > No one has reviewed V3.
> >
> > V3.1 = basically Review comments from v2 + Fix for Bot errors.
>
> v4, don't introduce some minor numbering to create impression of no
> changes, especially if you have multiple changes.
OK, When I send next version, I will use V5 and revision history(log change)
I will use v4 instead of v3.1 as it has multiple changes.
Is it ok?
Cheers,
Biju
