On 01/16/2015 08:17 AM, Al Stone wrote: > On 01/16/2015 03:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:31:53PM +0000, Al Stone wrote: >>> On 01/15/2015 11:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> This is the v7 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 >>>>> >>>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up >>>>> for v3.20? >>>> [snip ... ] >>> >>>>> 5. Platform support patches need verification and review >>>>> * ACPI core works on at least the Foundation model, Juno, APM >>>>> Mustang, and AMD Seattle >>>>> * There still are driver patches being discussed. See Al's summary >>>>> for details >>>>> * As I argued above, the state of driver patches isn't going to be >>>> >>>> We are still lacking here. To quote Al, "First version for AMD Seattle >>>> has been posted to the public linaro-acpi mailing list for initial >>>> review". Sorry but I don't follow linaro-acpi list. I don't know what's >>>> in those patches and I can't tell which subsystems they touch, whether >>>> maintainers agree with them. So in conclusion, I'm not confident the >>>> arm64 hardware ACPI story looks that great yet. >>>> >>> >>> This is solely my fault -- too much time on processes, email, and >>> documentation, not enough time on the Seattle patches. And not >>> enough Seattles to go around for someone else to pick up the slack. >>> >>> I am aware not everyone is subscribed to linaro-acpi; we use that >>> for internal review before posting more broadly, which is the only >>> reason I sent them there. >>> >>> I'm in the middle of updating them as I have time, based on really >>> good feedback from Arnd; few of them are terribly new (the very first >>> posting was [0]) -- it's mostly a matter of rebasing, integrating >>> updates from AMD and others, and reacting to the comments. One can >>> also see what these patches will probably look like via one of the >>> Fedora kernel trees [1]. >> >> Do you have some simple branch against mainline with just the ACPI core >> patches and what's required for AMD Seattle? I have no plans to dig >> through the Fedora kernels. >> > > Nor was I expecting you to; I only added it as additional reference > material, should one be interested. > > The version of patches sent to the linaro-acpi list are from the Linaro > acpi.git tree, and are precisely what you describe; those are the ones > being updated. > My bad, not enough coffee yet. The Linaro acpi.git tree is at: https://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
