On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 10:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines >> > bit 3 as follows. >> > >> > Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed >> > to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is >> > considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes. >> > >> > This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be >> > confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set. >> > >> > Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> >> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 6 +++--- >> > drivers/acpi/nfit.h | 2 +- >> > include/acpi/actbl1.h | 2 +- >> >> This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so >> any changes need to come through them. But that said, I'm not sure we >> need friendly names at this level. > > I think the name is misleading, but I agree with the process and this patch2 > can be dropped. It'd be nice if the ACPICA project can pick it up later > when they have a chance, though. A good way to cause that to happen would be to send a patch to the ACPICA development list + maintainers as per MAINTAINERS. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
