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. -- With best wishes Dmitry
