linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: PCI: altera: Convert to YAML

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]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJg_ahW451sBht1k5SxP9s4dE09F-EWrgdXdDpUPFDfcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:36:25 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, 
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, dinguyen@...nel.org, 
	joyce.ooi@...el.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: PCI: altera: Convert to YAML

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:43 PM <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 10:12:07AM -0500, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> >> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> 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@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> >> ---
> >> 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.

If this was 2 prior series, combined, there's not really a good answer
other than don't do that.

Rob