From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Stone Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:17:45 -0700 Message-ID: <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54B831C9.3060700@redhat.com> <20150116102035.GD13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]:42517 "EHLO mail-ig0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754002AbbAPPRt (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:17:49 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l13so4130996iga.1 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 07:17:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150116102035.GD13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas , Al Stone Cc: linaro-acpi , Will Deacon , Yijing Wang , Rob Herring , Timur Tabi , ACPI Devel Mailing List , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , "jcm@redhat.com" , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Randy Dunlap , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Olof Johansson On 01/16/2015 03:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:31:53PM +0000, Al Stone wrote: >> On 01/15/2015 11:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> This is the v7 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 >>>> >>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up >>>> for v3.20? >>> [snip ... ] >> >>>> 5. Platform support patches need verification and review >>>> * ACPI core works on at least the Foundation model, Juno, APM >>>> Mustang, and AMD Seattle >>>> * There still are driver patches being discussed. See Al's summary >>>> for details >>>> * As I argued above, the state of driver patches isn't going to be >>> >>> We are still lacking here. To quote Al, "First version for AMD Seattle >>> has been posted to the public linaro-acpi mailing list for initial >>> review". Sorry but I don't follow linaro-acpi list. I don't know what's >>> in those patches and I can't tell which subsystems they touch, whether >>> maintainers agree with them. So in conclusion, I'm not confident the >>> arm64 hardware ACPI story looks that great yet. >>> >> >> This is solely my fault -- too much time on processes, email, and >> documentation, not enough time on the Seattle patches. And not >> enough Seattles to go around for someone else to pick up the slack. >> >> I am aware not everyone is subscribed to linaro-acpi; we use that >> for internal review before posting more broadly, which is the only >> reason I sent them there. >> >> I'm in the middle of updating them as I have time, based on really >> good feedback from Arnd; few of them are terribly new (the very first >> posting was [0]) -- it's mostly a matter of rebasing, integrating >> updates from AMD and others, and reacting to the comments. One can >> also see what these patches will probably look like via one of the >> Fedora kernel trees [1]. > > Do you have some simple branch against mainline with just the ACPI core > patches and what's required for AMD Seattle? I have no plans to dig > through the Fedora kernels. > Nor was I expecting you to; I only added it as additional reference material, should one be interested. The version of patches sent to the linaro-acpi list are from the Linaro acpi.git tree, and are precisely what you describe; those are the ones being updated. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Linaro Enterprise Group al.stone@linaro.org ----------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755995AbbAPPRu (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:17:50 -0500 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:34243 "EHLO mail-ig0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753930AbbAPPRs (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:17:45 -0700 From: Al Stone User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Catalin Marinas , Al Stone CC: linaro-acpi , Will Deacon , Yijing Wang , Rob Herring , Timur Tabi , ACPI Devel Mailing List , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , "jcm@redhat.com" , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Randy Dunlap , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54B831C9.3060700@redhat.com> <20150116102035.GD13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150116102035.GD13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/16/2015 03:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:31:53PM +0000, Al Stone wrote: >> On 01/15/2015 11:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> This is the v7 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 >>>> >>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up >>>> for v3.20? >>> [snip ... ] >> >>>> 5. Platform support patches need verification and review >>>> * ACPI core works on at least the Foundation model, Juno, APM >>>> Mustang, and AMD Seattle >>>> * There still are driver patches being discussed. See Al's summary >>>> for details >>>> * As I argued above, the state of driver patches isn't going to be >>> >>> We are still lacking here. To quote Al, "First version for AMD Seattle >>> has been posted to the public linaro-acpi mailing list for initial >>> review". Sorry but I don't follow linaro-acpi list. I don't know what's >>> in those patches and I can't tell which subsystems they touch, whether >>> maintainers agree with them. So in conclusion, I'm not confident the >>> arm64 hardware ACPI story looks that great yet. >>> >> >> This is solely my fault -- too much time on processes, email, and >> documentation, not enough time on the Seattle patches. And not >> enough Seattles to go around for someone else to pick up the slack. >> >> I am aware not everyone is subscribed to linaro-acpi; we use that >> for internal review before posting more broadly, which is the only >> reason I sent them there. >> >> I'm in the middle of updating them as I have time, based on really >> good feedback from Arnd; few of them are terribly new (the very first >> posting was [0]) -- it's mostly a matter of rebasing, integrating >> updates from AMD and others, and reacting to the comments. One can >> also see what these patches will probably look like via one of the >> Fedora kernel trees [1]. > > Do you have some simple branch against mainline with just the ACPI core > patches and what's required for AMD Seattle? I have no plans to dig > through the Fedora kernels. > Nor was I expecting you to; I only added it as additional reference material, should one be interested. The version of patches sent to the linaro-acpi list are from the Linaro acpi.git tree, and are precisely what you describe; those are the ones being updated. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Linaro Enterprise Group al.stone@linaro.org ----------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: al.stone@linaro.org (Al Stone) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:17:45 -0700 Subject: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <20150116102035.GD13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54B831C9.3060700@redhat.com> <20150116102035.GD13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/16/2015 03:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:31:53PM +0000, Al Stone wrote: >> On 01/15/2015 11:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> This is the v7 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 >>>> >>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up >>>> for v3.20? >>> [snip ... ] >> >>>> 5. Platform support patches need verification and review >>>> * ACPI core works on at least the Foundation model, Juno, APM >>>> Mustang, and AMD Seattle >>>> * There still are driver patches being discussed. See Al's summary >>>> for details >>>> * As I argued above, the state of driver patches isn't going to be >>> >>> We are still lacking here. To quote Al, "First version for AMD Seattle >>> has been posted to the public linaro-acpi mailing list for initial >>> review". Sorry but I don't follow linaro-acpi list. I don't know what's >>> in those patches and I can't tell which subsystems they touch, whether >>> maintainers agree with them. So in conclusion, I'm not confident the >>> arm64 hardware ACPI story looks that great yet. >>> >> >> This is solely my fault -- too much time on processes, email, and >> documentation, not enough time on the Seattle patches. And not >> enough Seattles to go around for someone else to pick up the slack. >> >> I am aware not everyone is subscribed to linaro-acpi; we use that >> for internal review before posting more broadly, which is the only >> reason I sent them there. >> >> I'm in the middle of updating them as I have time, based on really >> good feedback from Arnd; few of them are terribly new (the very first >> posting was [0]) -- it's mostly a matter of rebasing, integrating >> updates from AMD and others, and reacting to the comments. One can >> also see what these patches will probably look like via one of the >> Fedora kernel trees [1]. > > Do you have some simple branch against mainline with just the ACPI core > patches and what's required for AMD Seattle? I have no plans to dig > through the Fedora kernels. > Nor was I expecting you to; I only added it as additional reference material, should one be interested. The version of patches sent to the linaro-acpi list are from the Linaro acpi.git tree, and are precisely what you describe; those are the ones being updated. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Linaro Enterprise Group al.stone at linaro.org -----------------------------------