On 09/12/2023 20:26, Sam Edwards wrote: >> Performing review on untested code might be >> a waste of time, thus I will skip this patch entirely till you follow >> the process allowing the patch to be tested. > > That's fine; this patch has just failed review anyway (due to the new > property not being introduced in a separate patch), and I'll need to > prepare and send a v2 to proceed. However as I mentioned in the cover, > this is a semi-RFC. I haven't discussed the overall idea with anyone > yet, so to avoid wasting my own time, I need to give the USB folks ample It does not really explain why you did not Cc some of the maintainers. If this is a RFC, even though not marked as such in subject prefix, then I guess all maintainers should be involved for comments. Best regards, Krzysztof
