> We are at v7 of this patch series, and no authoritative ACPI Linux > maintainer appears to have reviewed this, so there is no clear sign of > this converging anywhere. This is looking a lot like busy work for > nothing. Given that the representation appears to be wildly > misunderstood and no one seems to come up with something that reaches > community agreement, what exactly is the plan here? I think we need to NACK all attempts to add ACPI support to phylib and phylink until an authoritative ACPI Linux maintainer makes an appearance and actively steers the work. And not just this patchset, but all patchsets in the networking domain which have an ACPI component. Andrew
