On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:54:28 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, October 18, 2019 2:46:56 PM CET Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:18:33 +0200 > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 1:43:27 PM CEST Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > Generic Initiators are a new ACPI concept that allows for the > > > > description of proximity domains that contain a device which > > > > performs memory access (such as a network card) but neither > > > > host CPU nor Memory. > > > > > > > > This patch has the parsing code and provides the infrastructure > > > > for an architecture to associate these new domains with their > > > > nearest memory processing node. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This depends on the series from Dan at: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/CAPcyv4gBSX58CWH4HZ28w0_cZRzJrhgdEFHa2g8KDqyv8aFqZQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m1acce3ae8f29f680c0d95fd1e840e703949fbc48 > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Yes. Cover letter mentions it was rebased on v4 of that series. > > > > > AFAICS, so please respin when that one hits the Linus' tree. > > > > Sure, though that pushes it out another cycle and it's beginning to > > get a bit silly (just rebases since April). > > > > I guess it can't be helped given the series hits several trees. > > I've just applied the Dan's series and I can take patch [1/4] from this one, > but for the [2-3/4] I'd like to get some ACKs from the arm64 and x86 people > respectively. Thanks Rafael! Absolutely understood on the need for Acks. For ARM let us try a few more CCs +CC Will, Lorenzo, Hanjun. Also Ingo on basis of showing a passing interest in the x86 patch previously. Otherwise I think we have the x86 people most like to comment already cc'd. https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11174247/ has the full series. I'd appreciate anyone who has time taking a look at these. The actual actions in the architectures are very simple, but I may well be missing some subtlety. > > Thanks! > Thanks, Jonathan
