On 09.01.24 07:31, D, Lakshmi Sowjanya wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 8:50 PM >> To: D, Lakshmi Sowjanya <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx; giometti@xxxxxxxxxxxx; >> corbet@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; >> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-wired- >> lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dong, Eddie <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>; Hall, Christopher S >> <christopher.s.hall@xxxxxxxxx>; Brandeburg, Jesse >> <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx; joabreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx; >> mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx; perex@xxxxxxxx; linux-sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>; N, Pandith >> <pandith.n@xxxxxxxxx>; Sangannavar, Mallikarjunappa >> <mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@xxxxxxxxx>; T R, Thejesh Reddy >> <thejesh.reddy.t.r@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/11] Add support for Intel PPS Generator >> [...] >> At some point you should announce v1 of the series. RFC is usually being >> neglected by many (busy) maintainers. > > This patch series is dependent on https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231215220612.173603-2-peter.hilber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ which is RFC. So I understand my dependency series being RFC prevents the PPS series from dropping the RFC tag (correct me if I am wrong). I plan to send out a non-RFC version of the dependency series next. So far I think there will only be polishing changes. Due to testing being some effort, I wanted to test and send it together with some other series. But if this is blocking the PPS series, I think I could send out a non-RFC version of the dependency series earlier (by the end of January?). Please let me know what would align with the PPS series timeline. Regards, Peter > > Regards, > Sowjanya >> >> -- >> With Best Regards, >> Andy Shevchenko >> >
