Hi Jonathan On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 7:01 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:14:40 +0530 > Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 5:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 18/09/2023 10:03, Jagath Jog J wrote: > > > > Add devicetree description document for Bosch BMI323, a 6-Axis IMU. > > > > > > I don't know why this is RFC and cover letter does not explain it. Shall > > > I just ignore it? Patch is no ready? Recently at least two times someone > > > was disappointed that his code marked as RFC received my review. > > > > Thank you for reviewing. This was the sensor's first patch series, > > so I initially submitted it as an RFC. I will mark it as "Patch" > > in the next series. > > Have more confidence! RFCs need to have clearly stated questions. > If you don't have any then you are putting forwards driver for review > in ordering to get it merged upstream - so PATCH is appropriate. > As you'll see many IIO drivers go through a 'few' revisions once they > are posted (hopefully not too many!) > > Krzysztof is great at reviewing whatever shows up, but in many > cases reviewers won't look at an RFC (unless a big discussion starts) because > they aren't interested in open questions, just code that the author considers > ready. Thank you for your feedback and guidance. I appreciate the insight into the RFC process and the importance of clearly stated questions. I'll keep this in mind when preparing future submissions. Regards Jagath > > Jonathan
