Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] wifi: ath12k: Add wifi device node with WSI for QCN9274 in RDP433

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-11-07T12:21:34Z

On 07/11/2024 13:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 11:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> 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@quicinc.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

Best regards,
Krzysztof