From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63FEC3DA7D for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 09:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232970AbjACJqA (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2023 04:46:00 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60686 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230467AbjACJp7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2023 04:45:59 -0500 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (mx07-00178001.pphosted.com [185.132.182.106]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931FBB0C; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 01:45:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0288072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3039Rttf020920; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:45:24 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foss.st.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=selector1; bh=mwrG17PW7SqKB89a6ELsvyEm8ye3mmzw4STYyVEeDSU=; b=wBAUZhnv0+6UZSKWtf7q+8ZrcsoP9h1Su+GAt2CCsi2qMxxrvHwI96hpveBacWFvLt8z M5VGoQN9qR4mR4QpE/r+hZqhPymoFewPAMbgZc0RF/huPUPPH9JARsNTyyIph+sEFYY6 A7zwU0toRQwlrrGOGCF5hD78vhwrCoZrA/yjOxx8dfmqSLY23Balt56NcAN5EWulNUMa LuTH+AYSSPzfmDwJkh+3g9wFOFsyuiLCzXFecKKenpuHUsDkbDEucb/gvZ/wtjLbBaPC ZIlq4cY8HTNEADoYrThHWwe13qRF0hL6jfmmuPBFSiU+DNqNH2UwTwXBkwLgRkMslSIo Qg== Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3mtbcpv7ta-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:45:24 +0100 Received: from euls16034.sgp.st.com (euls16034.sgp.st.com [10.75.44.20]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 4613B10002A; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:45:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (shfdag1node1.st.com [10.75.129.69]) by euls16034.sgp.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 36D0721514F; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:45:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.201.21.177] (10.201.21.177) by SHFDAG1NODE1.st.com (10.75.129.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.13; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:45:22 +0100 Message-ID: <98aa92e9-9ac0-0fe4-a140-ac478e261f94@foss.st.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:45:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] Introduce STM32 system bus To: Greg KH CC: , , , , , , , , , , References: <20221222100504.68247-1-gatien.chevallier@foss.st.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Gatien CHEVALLIER In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.201.21.177] X-ClientProxiedBy: SHFCAS1NODE2.st.com (10.75.129.73) To SHFDAG1NODE1.st.com (10.75.129.69) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.923,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-02_14,2023-01-03_01,2022-06-22_01 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello Greg, I've put the "RFC" tag on the the patch set as it is based on bindings that are currently under review. It has been submitted with the idea to support the bindings proposed by Oleksii. Apart from this and the comments made by Krzysztof, there is indeed no more "work" planned on this change. Should the "RFC" tag be omitted for the next version? Best regards, Gatien On 12/22/22 17:39, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:04:57AM +0100, Gatien Chevallier wrote: >> Document STM32 System Bus. This bus is intended to control firewall >> access for the peripherals connected to it. > > Why is this an "RFC"? That usually means "I have more work to do on it, > but I'll send it out now anyway". What work is left? > > And for most code, I know I don't review "RFC" changes as there are too > many "real" patches being submitted where people think their code is > ready to be merged. Other reviewers might think otherwise, but be aware > of this... > > thanks, > > greg k-h