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

Kalle Valo
2024-11-11T18:05:10Z

Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> writes:

> 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.

Exactly, we just wanted to have early feedback how to handle this
feature. We will now incorporate these changes to our work-in-progress
ath12kl-mlo branches, test them and once everything else in ath12k is
ready we will submit the next patchset without RFC tag.

--