Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221012185411.1282838-1-dsankouski@gmail.com>
 <20221012185411.1282838-2-dsankouski@gmail.com> <99652775-8921-9d4a-193e-20d1487e6759@linaro.org>
 <CABTCjFDDEhNo0OVk+87kU93xwvXNR3tMuinfLXzZ6PeyweCpag@mail.gmail.com> <8c773f11-1c00-1856-daa7-250a4ec37d23@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <8c773f11-1c00-1856-daa7-250a4ec37d23@linaro.org>
From:   Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:02:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CABTCjFAajiT7QpyA9mG7i4XzWxtLsvRsDLPtWTvwmJbMYEr1SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: add samsung,starqltechn board
 based on sdm845 chip
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

=D0=BF=D1=82, 14 =D0=BE=D0=BA=D1=82. 2022 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 19:13, Krzysztof K=
ozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>:
>
> On 14/10/2022 07:01, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote:
> > =D1=87=D1=82, 13 =D0=BE=D0=BA=D1=82. 2022 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 16:43, Krzyszt=
of Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>:
> >>
> >> On 12/10/2022 14:54, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote:
> >>> Add samsung,starqltechn board (Samsung Galaxy S9) binding.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes for v2,v3: none
> >>
> >> Where is v2 and v3 of this?
> > I've been told it's easier for maintainers to resend all patch series,
> > even if only 1 patch from the series requires change. So I decided to
> > keep versions equal in all patches, to clearly indicate those patches
> > are from the same series. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> This is okay, but you wrote here there was a v1 and v2, and you changed
> nothing against it. If there was v1 and v2, we would ack it, I think.
>
> Or this changelog is for some other patch? Not for this one?
There's no previous versions of this patch, since it was born in the
v3 patch series. The empty changelog for this patch indicates that
there's no point to look for previous versions. I think I'll do it
differently next time to avoid confusion - just a sentence that vN is
the start version for patch.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>