On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 01:16:56PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/11/2024 13:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > 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. > > Wait, you can keep marking them RFC! It all depends what do you want to > achieve. Get some comments on early work or actual review for something > you believe is a finished work. > > I looked here briefly, no comments from me and I assume that was the > intention of RFC. Okay -- With best wishes Dmitry
