On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:34:37PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > Hi Everybody > > So i think it is time to try to bring this discussion to some sort of > conclusion. > > No ACPI maintainer is willing to ACK any of these patches. Nor are > they willing to NACK them. ACPI maintainers simply don't want to get > involved in making use of ACPI in networking. > > I personally don't have the knowledge to do ACPI correctly, review > patches, point people in the right direction. I suspect the same can > be said for the other PHY maintainers. > > Having said that, there is clearly a wish from vendors to make use of > ACPI in the networking subsystem to describe hardware. > > How do we go forward? > > For the moment, we will need to NACK all patches adding ACPI support > to the PHY subsystem. > > Vendors who really do want to use ACPI, not device tree, probably > need to get involved in standardisation. Vendors need to submit a > proposal to UEFI and get it accepted. > > Developers should try to engage with the ACPI maintainers and see > if they can get them involved in networking. Patches with an > Acked-by from an ACPI maintainer will be accepted, assuming they > fulfil all the other usual requirements. But please don't submit > patches until you do have an ACPI maintainer on board. We don't > want to spamming the lists with NACKs all the time. For the record, this statement reflects my position as well (as one of the named phylib maintainers). Thanks Andrew. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
