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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:21:04 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>, lpieralisi@...nel.org,
 kw@...ux.com, robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 srk@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: PCI: ti,j721e-pci-host: Add device-id
 for TI's J784S4 SoC

On 08/01/2024 11:20, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> 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@...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

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.

Best regards,
Krzysztof