Message ID | cover.1689215889.git.chenfeiyang@loongson.cn (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | net: phy/stmmac: Add Loongson platform support | expand |
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:46:52AM +0800, Feiyang Chen wrote: > Add driver for Loongson PHY. Extend stmmac functions and macros for > Loongson DWMAC. Add LS7A support for dwmac_loongson. Why is this RFC? What do you actually want comment on? Andrew
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:09 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:46:52AM +0800, Feiyang Chen wrote: > > Add driver for Loongson PHY. Extend stmmac functions and macros for > > Loongson DWMAC. Add LS7A support for dwmac_loongson. > > Why is this RFC? What do you actually want comment on? > Hi, Andrew, I marked this patch series as an RFC because I believe it involves significant changes to the dwmac1000 driver. I want comments on the design and any alternative suggestions. Thanks, Feiyang > Andrew
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:16:07AM +0800, Feiyang Chen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:09 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:46:52AM +0800, Feiyang Chen wrote: > > > Add driver for Loongson PHY. Extend stmmac functions and macros for > > > Loongson DWMAC. Add LS7A support for dwmac_loongson. > > > > Why is this RFC? What do you actually want comment on? > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > I marked this patch series as an RFC because I believe it involves > significant changes to the dwmac1000 driver. I want comments on the > design and any alternative suggestions. That is admirable, but in practice, I've found that posting RFCs is a waste of effort and time - basically, it seems people ignore patches posted as RFC. This turns the whole thing when posting patches into basically what I'd summarise as "reviewer blackmail" - post the patches non-RFC even when you want only comments, and reviewers _have_ to comment on the patches if there's something they don't like to prevent them being merged. It's sad that it comes to that, but that is the reality of how things appear to work.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 09:39:07AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:16:07AM +0800, Feiyang Chen wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:09 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:46:52AM +0800, Feiyang Chen wrote: > > > > Add driver for Loongson PHY. Extend stmmac functions and macros for > > > > Loongson DWMAC. Add LS7A support for dwmac_loongson. > > > > > > Why is this RFC? What do you actually want comment on? > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > I marked this patch series as an RFC because I believe it involves > > significant changes to the dwmac1000 driver. I want comments on the > > design and any alternative suggestions. > > That is admirable, but in practice, I've found that posting RFCs is > a waste of effort and time - basically, it seems people ignore > patches posted as RFC. > > This turns the whole thing when posting patches into basically what > I'd summarise as "reviewer blackmail" - post the patches non-RFC > even when you want only comments, and reviewers _have_ to comment on > the patches if there's something they don't like to prevent them > being merged. > > It's sad that it comes to that, but that is the reality of how things > appear to work. I have to agree with Russell. You wanted comments on the dwmac1000 patches, but all you received where comments on the PHY parts. Maybe if you had requested comments on the MAC driver changes, somebody might of commented, but i doubt it. RFC seems best used during the merge window, and when you know the target audience well enough to know they will look at the patches even when it does have RFC. Andrew
Hi, Russell, Andrew, Thank you for your insights on RFC patches. I'll remove the RFC in the next version of the patch series. Thanks, Feiyang