From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Graeme Gregory Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:05:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1410530416-30200-19-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Rutland , Olof Johansson , Grant Likely , Will Deacon , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau , Lv Zheng , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Daniel Lezcano , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Jon Masters , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Randy Dunlap List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:44:10AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:00:16PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > +Common _DSD bindings should be submitted to ASWG to be included in the > > +document :- > > + > > +http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm > > How are individuals/companies who aren't UEFI members supposed to do > this? Aren't there IP issues involved in taking submissions from > non-members? > This section needs to be changed anyway, it comes out of a misunderstanding I had of the _DSD spec. It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT bindings in _DSD? Graeme From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755936AbaIQQFO (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:05:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:56297 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755215AbaIQQFM (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:05:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:05:08 -0700 From: Graeme Gregory To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Rutland , Olof Johansson , Grant Likely , Will Deacon , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau , Lv Zheng , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Daniel Lezcano , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Jon Masters , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Message-ID: <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1410530416-30200-19-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:44:10AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:00:16PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > +Common _DSD bindings should be submitted to ASWG to be included in the > > +document :- > > + > > +http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm > > How are individuals/companies who aren't UEFI members supposed to do > this? Aren't there IP issues involved in taking submissions from > non-members? > This section needs to be changed anyway, it comes out of a misunderstanding I had of the _DSD spec. It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT bindings in _DSD? Graeme From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: graeme.gregory@linaro.org (Graeme Gregory) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:05:08 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 In-Reply-To: <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1410530416-30200-19-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> Message-ID: <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:44:10AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:00:16PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > +Common _DSD bindings should be submitted to ASWG to be included in the > > +document :- > > + > > +http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm > > How are individuals/companies who aren't UEFI members supposed to do > this? Aren't there IP issues involved in taking submissions from > non-members? > This section needs to be changed anyway, it comes out of a misunderstanding I had of the _DSD spec. It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT bindings in _DSD? Graeme