Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/11] Add support for Intel PPS Generator

[Peter Hilber]

On 09.01.24 07:31, D, Lakshmi Sowjanya wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 8:50 PM
>> To: D, Lakshmi Sowjanya <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx; giometti@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> corbet@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-wired-
>> lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dong, Eddie <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>; Hall, Christopher S
>> <christopher.s.hall@xxxxxxxxx>; Brandeburg, Jesse
>> <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx; joabreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx; perex@xxxxxxxx; linux-sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>; N, Pandith
>> <pandith.n@xxxxxxxxx>; Sangannavar, Mallikarjunappa
>> <mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@xxxxxxxxx>; T R, Thejesh Reddy
>> <thejesh.reddy.t.r@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/11] Add support for Intel PPS Generator
>>
[...]
>> At some point you should announce v1 of the series. RFC is usually being
>> neglected by many (busy) maintainers.
> 
> This patch series is dependent on https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231215220612.173603-2-peter.hilber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ which is RFC.

So I understand my dependency series being RFC prevents the PPS series from
dropping the RFC tag (correct me if I am wrong).

I plan to send out a non-RFC version of the dependency series next. So far
I think there will only be polishing changes. Due to testing being some
effort, I wanted to test and send it together with some other series.

But if this is blocking the PPS series, I think I could send out a non-RFC
version of the dependency series earlier (by the end of January?). Please
let me know what would align with the PPS series timeline.

Regards,

Peter

> 
> Regards,
> Sowjanya
>>
>> --
>> With Best Regards,
>> Andy Shevchenko
>>
>