Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Add bindings for adp1051, adp1055 and ltp8800

["Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 02:44 +0000, Encarnacion, Cedric justine wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 2:39 AM
> > To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>; Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>;
> > Encarnacion, Cedric justine <Cedricjustine.Encarnacion@analog.com>
> > Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > i2c@vger.kernel.org; linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org;
> > Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>;
> > Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@wiwynn.com>; Rob Herring
> > <robh@kernel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>; Conor Dooley
> > <conor+dt@kernel.org>; Sabau, Radu bogdan <Radu.Sabau@analog.com>; Uwe
> > Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>; Torreno, Alexis Czezar
> > <AlexisCzezar.Torreno@analog.com>; Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Add bindings
> > for adp1051, adp1055 and ltp8800
> > 
> > [External]
> > 
> > On 20/11/2024 19:07, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/20/24 09:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 20/11/2024 18:11, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:58:25AM +0800, Cedric Encarnacion wrote:
> > > > > > add dt-bindings for adp1051, adp1055, and ltp8800 pmbus.
> > > > > >      ADP1051: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Temperature
> > > > > >      ADP1055: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Power, Temperature
> > > > > >      LTP8800-1A/-2/-4A: 150A/135A/200A DC/DC µModule Regulator
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Co-developed-by: Alexis Czezar Torreno
> > <alexisczezar.torreno@analog.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexis Czezar Torreno <alexisczezar.torreno@analog.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cedric Encarnacion
> > <cedricjustine.encarnacion@analog.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why did you drop my ack?
> > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241106-
> > linoleum-kebab-
> > decf14f54f76@spud/__;!!A3Ni8CS0y2Y!7Q2KluGdg8cJW_wYUd-
> > vh5mP66Ns62VZOkPG4Jf7NY9ULtTfjiwYqrUHbik_tI9X4izI6fAQS_7eVscdEFK_X
> > OEm$
> > > > So that's a v2? Or v3? Then should be marked correctly. Please start
> > > > using b4. I already asked analog.com for this in few cases. Feel free
> > > > not to use b4 if you send correct patches, but this is not the case here.
> > > > 
> 
> Okay, I will start exploring b4 for future patches.
> 

Next time, reach out to me. I have been pointing everbody to b4 (if asked naturally).

> > > 
> > > In general I agree, but this is a combination of two patch series, as mentioned
> > > in the summary. I am not sure how to use versioning in such situations. Is it
> > > v2 of one series or v3 of the other ?
> > I would say the highest and keep the b4 changeset. This allows to use b4
> > diff easily. Choice done here - v1, no usage of b4  - breaks everything,
> > look:
> > 
> > b4 diff '<20241120035826.3920-1-cedricjustine.encarnacion@analog.com>'
> > Grabbing thread from
> > lore.kernel.org/all/20241120035826.3920-1-
> > cedricjustine.encarnacion@analog.com/t.mbox.gz
> > ---
> > Analyzing 13 messages in the thread
> > Could not find lower series to compare against.
> 
> This is v2 of one and v3 of another. For the upcoming versions, should I
> proceed to v4 which succeeds the highest or continue to v2 based on this
> series?
> 

It seems to me the highest is the preferred...

- Nuno Sá