Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: tjiang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 15:15:01 +0800
From:   tjiang@codeaurora.org
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc:     marcel@holtmann.org, johan.hedberg@gmail.com, luiz.dentz@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, bgodavar@codeaurora.org,
        c-hbandi@codeaurora.org, hemantg@codeaurora.org,
        rjliao@codeaurora.org, zijuhu@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support for variant WCN6855 by
 using different nvm
In-Reply-To: <YXl3S7TT30PFfyB8@google.com>
References: <1d19afff955cdc8d47582297a26246d9@codeaurora.org>
 <YXgrwKUZwUWuWfG4@google.com>
 <fe118b60df5881b0e9938f57aae6f87e@codeaurora.org>
 <YXl3S7TT30PFfyB8@google.com>
Message-ID: <a04518bd30761a2fecfbee8f435d4daf@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

Thanks Matthias for the comments.

the conclusion is that I can continue to use this patch , right ? thank 
you.

regards.
tim


On 2021-10-27 23:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:12:07PM +0800, tjiang@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> Hi Matthias:
>>   the previous patch is submitted by zijun , as he is not working on 
>> this
>> project, I take over his job, so can we assume abandon the previous 
>> patch,
>> using my new patch ? thank you.
>> regards.
> 
> Your patch is clearly based on zijun's one, it even has the same 
> subject. A
> change of authorship shouldn't result in resetting the version number, 
> it's
> still the same patch/series. You can always add a 'Co-developed-by:' 
> tag to
> indicate that someone else contributed to a patch, or use a 'From:' tag 
> if
> you only made minor changes on top of someone else's work.
> 
> Not sure how to proceed best with the version number, especially since 
> there
> are already 3 versions of the 'new' patch. Either option can create 
> confusion,
> I guess you can continue with the new scheme, it seems the patch is 
> almost
> ready to land anyway.