Re: [RFC net-next] dt-bindings: net: xilinx: document xilinx emaclite driver binding

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/05/2022 17:47, Radhey Shyam Pandey wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 2:23 PM
>> To: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radheys@xxxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; Harini Katakam
>> <harinik@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; git <git@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] dt-bindings: net: xilinx: document xilinx emaclite
>> driver binding
>>
>> On 12/05/2022 18:39, Radhey Shyam Pandey wrote:
>>> Add basic description for the xilinx emaclite driver DT bindings.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/net/xlnx,emaclite.yaml           | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/xlnx,emaclite.yaml
>>
>> Why is this RFC? Do you expect DT maintainers review or not? Maybe there is
>> no point for us to review something which is not going to be applied?
> 
> I intentionally made it RFC so that all aspects are reviewed as this driver didn't
> had an existing binding. I will send out next version with below comment 
> addressed. Thanks!

RFC means you develop something which is not ready, not sure how to do
it, you send an initial idea. Sending a regular bindings as RFC, without
explaining what you expect, is a bit confusing.

Best regards,
Krzysztof