Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19331-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <bc3a0fb0-6268-476a-a13a-2d538704f61d@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 15:50:20 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
CC: <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <srk@ti.com>, <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
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 <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        <lpieralisi@kernel.org>, <kw@linux.com>, <robh@kernel.org>,
        <bhelgaas@google.com>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        <conor+dt@kernel.org>
References: <20240108050735.512445-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com>
 <67af1724-6424-456a-aff6-85d9e010c430@linaro.org>
From: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <67af1724-6424-456a-aff6-85d9e010c430@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Krzysztof,

On 08/01/24 12:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 06:07, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>> Add the device-id of 0xb012 for the PCIe controller on the J784S4 SoC as
>> described in the CTRL_MMR_PCI_DEVICE_ID register's PCI_DEVICE_ID_DEVICE_ID
>> field. The Register descriptions and the Technical Reference Manual for
>> J784S4 SoC can be found at: https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/spruj52
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
>> ---
>>
>> This patch is based on linux-next tagged next-20240105.
> 
> 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
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.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Regards,
Siddharth.