linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: light: Add support for APDS9306 Light Sensor

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 14:36:31 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@...aklogic.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paul Gazzillo <paul@...zz.com>,
        Matt Ranostay <matt@...ostay.sg>,
        Stefan Windfeldt-Prytz <stefan.windfeldt-prytz@...s.com>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: light: Add support for APDS9306 Light
 Sensor

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 22:12:11 +1030
Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@...aklogic.com> 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
>