On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:12:15PM +0300, 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. That is really disappointing that these patch sets are not being copied to the appropriate people (ACPI). I seem to remember I've already stated on at least a couple of occasions that these patch sets which add ACPI support to phylib need to be copied to ACPI people. I guess if ACPI people have been omitted, there will be a few more patch series iterations. Then there's that all the discussion that has already happened is not known to ACPI people, so we're probably doomed to repeating at least some of that. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
