linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: add AD762x/AD796x ADCs

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]

Message-ID: <186bc509-c0eb-4c60-a65f-99e773c151fb@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:58:45 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@...libre.com>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
 Uwe Kleine-Konig <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: add AD762x/AD796x ADCs

On 31/07/2024 17:22, Trevor Gamblin wrote:
> 
> On 2024-07-31 10:11 a.m., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 31/07/2024 15:48, Trevor Gamblin wrote:
>>> This adds a binding specification for the Analog Devices Inc. AD7625,
>>> AD7626, AD7960, and AD7961 ADCs.
>> Please do not use "This commit/patch/change", but imperative mood. See
>> longer explanation here:
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L95
> Will do.
>>
>> Why this is not ready, but RFC? What exactly needs to be commented here?
> There's one outstanding question about whether or not there should be a 
> DT property for specifying whether DCO+/- lines are connected (mentioned 
> in the cover letter but not here). I guess it doesn't need to be an RFC 
> just for that.

RFC means patch is not ready for review and you just ask for some
comments. Some maintainers even ignore RFC and wait till you send
something ready.

Best regards,
Krzysztof