Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20367-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <d9c8014e-bd78-4802-95d3-aaab8c9c7c22@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:38:54 +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>
 <bc3a0fb0-6268-476a-a13a-2d538704f61d@ti.com>
 <7d3439c2-35e3-4318-aa99-af9b7c8ed53b@linaro.org>
 <e4bd76d1-e5d9-4ff6-8917-db5784dea847@ti.com>
 <5fc52ff2-e903-46e6-a808-b4a41a76ad58@linaro.org>
From: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <5fc52ff2-e903-46e6-a808-b4a41a76ad58@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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.