On 7/24/20 1:12 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:20 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. > > It's funny, since I see ACPI mailing list and none of the maintainers > in the Cc here... > I'm not sure they pay attention to some (noise-like?) activity which > (from their perspective) happens on unrelated lists. If you what you describe here is their perception of what is going on here, that is very encouraging, we are definitively going to make progress. -- Florian
