I don’t have any problem changing this in ACPICA if/when you all agree. > -----Original Message----- > From: Toshi Kani [mailto:toshi.kani@xxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 4:36 PM > To: Rafael J. Wysocki > Cc: Williams, Dan J; Wysocki, Rafael J; Moore, Robert; linux- > nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux ACPI; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Elliott, > Robert (Server Storage) > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: acpica/nfit: Rename not-armed bit definition > > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 17:29 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 01:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Oh, I see. I did run get_maintainer.pl for this patch, but > > devel@xxxxxxxxxx did not come out in output... So, I did not realize > > this email list. > > Sorry, it was listed in the output. I was simply blinded... :-( > > $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl patches-nd-flags/02* > : > linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:LIBNVDIMM BLK: MMIO-APERTURE DRIVER) > linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:ACPI) linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > (open list) devel@xxxxxxxxxx (open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE > (ACPICA)) > > Thanks! > -Toshi ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
