On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb, at 09:15:28PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> Actually, the reason is that, as a rule, the process for ACPICA >> patches is that they first go to upstream ACPICA and they are acquired >> by Linux from there. >> >> While there are some exceptions from that process, there also are good >> reasons for that process to be followed, including the licensing one >> mentioned by Lv. >> >> All that said, Matt, if you agree that the patch can be applied under >> the BSD license, I think we can offer help with converting it to the >> upstream ACPICA coding conventions and applying it there. Lv, would >> you be able to take care of that? > > I don't have any problem with that, but can we hold off on this patch > for now? There's another approach to fixing the BGRT issue with kexec > that's being discussed which would supersede this, > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160218141544.GH2651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Assuming this patch does get picked up again, I'm happy to respin it > against upstream ACPICA, but how do I go about getting dependent > patches merged, PATCH 2/2 in this case? We generate a Linux version of the patch out of the upstream ACPICA sources (semi-automatically) and that can be merged into Linux in advance. We don't do that as a rule, but it can be done. That at least ensures that we'll be consistent with future ACPICA updates from the upstream. 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
