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

Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-11-07T12:16:00Z

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.

--
With best wishes
Dmitry