On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, Octavian > Hi Lv, > I noticed there are 2 patches you've sent to the community. > But unfortunately I didn't find them in my mailbox. > Let me comment you here. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5501621/ > This patch seem to be correct. > But Rafael should merge it directly via Linux because acpi_unload_table_id() is not in the ACPICA upstream. OK, thanks for letting me know. Rafel, does the patch look ok to you? > We expect the OSPMs to use acpi_unload_parent_table() instead. > I have a divergences reduction series to achieve the transition. > But they are pending for review for almost half a year. > If you have an environment to test. > Could you help to test this again? > I can prepare the patchset for you. > Sure, if you can point me to the patch-set I can test it on my setup. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5501561/ > This patch is correct, I've put it in the 201501 ACPICA release materials for review: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5501621/ > The patch can be found at: > https://github.com/zetalog/acpica/commit/281ff873 > So if it is merged, you'll see it in the upstream after 201501 ACPICA release cycle. > And hence Linux trees doesn't need to merge this patch directly. > Thanks, Tavi -- 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
