Hi Rafael, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:26:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:38 AM Calvin Johnson > <calvin.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > <snip> > > > So, yes, there's another driver using it, but the ACPI folk probably > > > never got a look-in on that instance. Even if they had been copied, > > > the patch description is probably sufficiently poor that they wouldn't > > > have read the patch. > > > > > > I'd say there's questions over whether ACPI people will find this an > > > acceptable approach. > > > > > > Given that your patch moves this from one driver to a subsystem thing, > > > it needs to be ratified by ACPI people, because it's effectively > > > becoming a standardised way to represent a PHY in ACPI. > > > > How can we get attention/response from ACPI people? > > This is in my queue, but the processing of this has been slow for a > while, sorry about that. > > If you have a new version of the series, please submit it, otherwise > ping me in a couple of days if I don't respond to the patches in the > meantime. I've posted v3 of the patchset. Can you please review? Thanks Calvin
