On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:44:05AM +0100, Richard Leitner wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 02/03/2017 10:03 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:44:29PM +0100, Richard Leitner wrote: > >> This patch adds a driver for configuration of the Microchip USB251xB/xBi > >> USB 2.0 hub controller series with USB 2.0 upstream connectivity, SMBus > >> configuration interface and two to four USB 2.0 downstream ports. > >> > >> Furthermore add myself as a maintainer for this driver. > >> > >> The datasheet can be found at the manufacturers website, see [1]. All > >> device-tree exposed configuration features have been tested on a i.MX6 > >> platform with a USB2512B hub. > >> > >> [1] http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/00001692C.pdf > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > What is "RFC" about this? If you don't think it's ready to be merged, > > I'll agree with that and so I've deleted it from my review queue :) > > As it's my first patch which adds a new driver I thought (after reading > [1]) a "RFC" would be appropriate. Isn't it? > > As stated in the commit message we tested it internally on an i.MX6 > platform. Therefore, from my/our point of view, it works as expected and > should be ready to be merged (otherwise I wouldn't have submitted it to > the ML ;-) ). > > So how should I proceed here? Re-send it without "RFC"? Wait for some > feedback? Something completely different? resend it without the RFC and I'll be glad to review it for inclusion. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
