On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:13 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I can't speak for them. As a maintainer in other areas I expect that people Cc explicitly maintainer(s) if they want more attention. Otherwise I look at the mails to the mailing list just from time to time. But this is my expectation, don't take me wrong. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
