From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com (lelv0142.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9B725750; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 04:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="aw5qH1Hp" Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 40948xXA005938; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:08:59 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1704773339; bh=JHMZnTr8NrMx/rQCap/rZ0aFLoj4Fsi96vTmJALCxNM=; h=Date:CC:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=aw5qH1HpWVvHz0h02x+EB8s8RDQs9kJpVZQMDDJF0TObya2yULfhMazIAnU2UZwBr cxcGoPoXVLZBkpVyIXMqvVLK77NYXHHo934njpx/+SrEyY3a0m7qjaIp06xDl9o4v1 EQmDM7a1lsdCIVBlDo7Ci0CP+PxmqXB3U0O8ePGI= Received: from DLEE114.ent.ti.com (dlee114.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.25]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 40948xTD127114 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:08:59 -0600 Received: from DLEE115.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.26) by DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:08:59 -0600 Received: from lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.249) by DLEE115.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:08:59 -0600 Received: from [172.24.227.9] (uda0492258.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.227.9]) by lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 40948tlO029309; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:08:55 -0600 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:38:54 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird CC: , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: PCI: ti,j721e-pci-host: Add device-id for TI's J784S4 SoC Content-Language: en-US To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , , , , , , References: <20240108050735.512445-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com> <67af1724-6424-456a-aff6-85d9e010c430@linaro.org> <7d3439c2-35e3-4318-aa99-af9b7c8ed53b@linaro.org> <5fc52ff2-e903-46e6-a808-b4a41a76ad58@linaro.org> From: Siddharth Vadapalli In-Reply-To: <5fc52ff2-e903-46e6-a808-b4a41a76ad58@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 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.