Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
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 <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC:     <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <Oleksii_Moisieiev@epam.com>, <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <loic.pallardy@st.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20221222100504.68247-1-gatien.chevallier@foss.st.com>
 <Y6SIOpsxNdezKCTc@kroah.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Gatien CHEVALLIER <gatien.chevallier@foss.st.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y6SIOpsxNdezKCTc@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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