Hi, Octavian > From: Octavian Purdila [mailto:octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 2:03 PM > > 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. I didn't have environment to test, so let me send it as RFC with some pci-hotplug/ia64 guys Cced... Thanks -Lv > > > 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 ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
