Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-52919-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:33:14 -0600
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To: Anjelique Melendez <quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>, lee@kernel.org, 
	robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, 
	agross@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: Add qcom,pbs bindings
Message-ID: <jnn5hxa5nj26ocmdectpg5dq6cxrcd5d22x3kffhd4jc7i4nh6@fqgxlcwgj5th>
References: <20240201204421.16992-2-quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
 <20240201204421.16992-4-quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
 <1de7cfbc-3507-459f-842e-c9349b2f05ac@linaro.org>
 <4a9b6d7b-70ab-cd18-770c-37993b0ccc63@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4a9b6d7b-70ab-cd18-770c-37993b0ccc63@quicinc.com>

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 09:49:21AM -0800, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/1/2024 11:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 01/02/2024 21:44, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
> >> Add binding for the Qualcomm Programmable Boot Sequencer device.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > 
> > How is it possible? This is v1, not a resend, and I never give review
> > tags not in public.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> > 
> Sorry for the confusion, this patch was originally in this series:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231221185838.28440-2-quic_amelende@quicinc.com/,
> where you gave your reviewed by tag in v3:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/102328fa-5699-4731-d639-079bce8863a5@linaro.org/.
> This was separated into a new series since half of the original
> patches were already applied. I mentioned this in the cover
> letter but in future should I keep version the same as the original
> series?
> 

Marking the patch(es) v9 makes it clear that they have been on the list
already. This would be true either if you rebased v8 (and git dropped
the applied patches from your series), or if you resubmitted some patch
on it's own.

Regards,
Bjorn