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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <5edb1ea6-63e-8bfb-aaa5-a333d5987339@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
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, 9 Aug 2024, Rob Herring wrote:

> 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.

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