Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: PCI: ti,j721e-pci-host: Add device-id for TI's J784S4 SoC

[Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>]

On 08/01/24 17:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this patch incomplete? What is missing here? What are you asking
>>>>> about as RFC?
>>>>
>>>> Since the merge window is closed, I was hoping to get the patch reviewed in
>>>> order to get any "Reviewed-by" tags if possible. That way, I will be able to
>>>> post it again as v1 along with the tags when the merge window opens. For that
>>>
>>> This is v1, so that would be v2.
>>>
>>>> reason, I have marked it as an RFC patch. Is there an alternative to this "RFC
>>>> patch" method that I have followed? Please let me know.
>>>
>>> Then how does it differ from posting without RFC? Sorry, RFC is
>>> incomplete work. Often ignored during review.
>>
>> I was under the impression that posting patches when the merge window is closed
>> will be met with a "post your patch later when the merge window is open"
>> response. That is why I chose the "RFC patch" path since RFCs can be posted anytime.
>>
>> For the Networking Subsystem, it is documented that patches with new features
>> shouldn't be posted when the merge window is closed. I have mostly posted
>> patches for the Networking Subsystem and am not sure about the rules for the
>> device-tree bindings and PCI Subsystems. To be on the safe side I posted this
>> patch as an RFC patch.
> 
> Ah, so you want to go around that policy by posting non-RFC patch as
> RFC. It does not work like that.

Thank you for clarifying. May I post the v2 of this patch in that case, after
rebasing it on the latest linux-next? I wish to receive feedback or Reviewed-by
tags for the v2 patch and post the v3 accordingly when the merge window opens again.

-- 
Regards,
Siddharth.