From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: misc: add USB251xB/xBi Hi-Speed Hub Controller Driver Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:57:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20170203095730.GA29502@kroah.com> References: <1486043069-1575-1-git-send-email-richard.leitner@skidata.com> <20170203090327.GA27160@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Leitner Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:44:05AM +0100, Richard Leitner wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 02/03/2017 10:03 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:44:29PM +0100, Richard Leitner wrote: > >> This patch adds a driver for configuration of the Microchip USB251xB/xBi > >> USB 2.0 hub controller series with USB 2.0 upstream connectivity, SMBus > >> configuration interface and two to four USB 2.0 downstream ports. > >> > >> Furthermore add myself as a maintainer for this driver. > >> > >> The datasheet can be found at the manufacturers website, see [1]. All > >> device-tree exposed configuration features have been tested on a i.MX6 > >> platform with a USB2512B hub. > >> > >> [1] http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/00001692C.pdf > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner > > > > What is "RFC" about this? If you don't think it's ready to be merged, > > I'll agree with that and so I've deleted it from my review queue :) > > As it's my first patch which adds a new driver I thought (after reading > [1]) a "RFC" would be appropriate. Isn't it? > > As stated in the commit message we tested it internally on an i.MX6 > platform. Therefore, from my/our point of view, it works as expected and > should be ready to be merged (otherwise I wouldn't have submitted it to > the ML ;-) ). > > So how should I proceed here? Re-send it without "RFC"? Wait for some > feedback? Something completely different? resend it without the RFC and I'll be glad to review it for inclusion. thanks, greg k-h