Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 07/11/2024 13:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 11:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 07/11/2024 12:06, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:23:20AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 05/11/2024 19:04, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote: >>>>>> The RDP433 is a Qualcomm Reference Design Platform based on the >>>>>> IPQ9574. It features three QCN9274 WiFi devices connected to PCIe1, >>>>>> PCIe2, and PCIe3. These devices are also interconnected via a WLAN >>>>>> Serial Interface (WSI) connection. This WSI connection is essential >>>>>> for exchanging control information among these devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch series describes the WSI interface found in QCN9274 in >>>>>> device tree and uses this device tree node in the Ath12k driver to get the >>>>>> details of WSI connection for Multi Link Operation (MLO) among multiple >>>>>> QCN9274 devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> NOTES: >>>>>> 1. As ath12k MLO patches are not ready yet, this patchset does not apply >>>>>> to the ath.git ath-next branch and that's why the patchset is marked >>>>>> as RFC. These are the work-in-progress patches we have at the moment. >>>>>> The full set of MLO patches is available at: >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ath/ath.git/log/?h=ath12k-mlo-qcn9274 >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The dependency marked below applies only to the DTS patch. The >>>>>> dt-bindings patches do not have this dependency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Depends-On: [PATCH V7 0/4] Add PCIe support for IPQ9574 >>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20240801054803.3015572-1-quic_srichara@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>> >>>>>> v3: >>>>>> - Created a separate binding "qcom,ath12k-wsi.yaml" to describe ath12k PCI >>>>>> devices with WSI interface. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the changes. When you finish with testing/RFC, please send >>>>> proper version for review (just remember to keep numbering, next one is >>>>> v4 regardless whether this is RFC or not). >>>> >>>> Isn't the 'RFC' being an invitation for review per the nature of the tag >>>> itself? >>> >>> No, RFC means patch is not ready, might change. This was brought on the >>> lists multiple times and some maintainers clearly ignore RFC. Including me. >> >> Thanks, point noted. I'll stop marking my patches with RFC tag. > > Wait, you can keep marking them RFC! It all depends what do you want to > achieve. Get some comments on early work or actual review for something > you believe is a finished work. > > I looked here briefly, no comments from me and I assume that was the > intention of RFC. Exactly, we just wanted to have early feedback how to handle this feature. We will now incorporate these changes to our work-in-progress ath12kl-mlo branches, test them and once everything else in ath12k is ready we will submit the next patchset without RFC tag. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
