RE: [PATCH v3.1 0/8] Convert DA906{1,2} bindings to json-schema

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

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux