On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:59 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Again, folks, you are discussing something without direct Cc'ing to them (I see a subset? of the maintainers we discussed in another mail). I believe that many maintainers are using some type of scoring for their emails and Cc'ing directly increases chances to get a reply. Also you have at least two or three people in ACPI/arm64. What do they think? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
