From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suravee Suthikulpanit Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:44:19 -0600 Message-ID: <54B931D3.7040109@amd.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> <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Al Stone , Catalin Marinas , Al Stone Cc: Rob Herring , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , linaro-acpi , Marc Zyngier , "jcm@redhat.com" , Timur Tabi , Randy Dunlap , Will Deacon , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Mailing List , Mark Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , Yijing Wang , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 1/16/15 09:17, Al Stone wrote: > 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. > Catalin, For Seattle, you could use the https://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git acpi-5.1-v7, and it would also need the AHCI ACPI patch here (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/5/662). Thanks, Suravee From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756294AbbAPP7g (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:59:36 -0500 Received: from mail-by2on0144.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.100.144]:19968 "EHLO na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751645AbbAPP7e (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:59:34 -0500 X-WSS-ID: 0NIA11U-08-Y6R-02 X-M-MSG: Message-ID: <54B931D3.7040109@amd.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:44:19 -0600 From: Suravee Suthikulpanit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Stone , 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> <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.180.168.240] X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is 165.204.84.222) smtp.mailfrom=Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com; X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:165.204.84.222;CTRY:US;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(428002)(199003)(164054003)(479174004)(51704005)(24454002)(189002)(377454003)(47776003)(76176999)(77096005)(83506001)(64126003)(65956001)(77156002)(19580405001)(50986999)(93886004)(87266999)(54356999)(65816999)(64706001)(65806001)(68736005)(15975445007)(87936001)(36756003)(92566002)(2950100001)(101416001)(59896002)(19580395003)(62966003)(46102003)(86362001)(97736003)(50466002)(105586002)(33656002)(23746002)(80316001)(106466001);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2PR02MB201;H:atltwp02.amd.com;FPR:;SPF:None;MLV:sfv;PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-DmarcAction-Test: None X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:BY2PR02MB201; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004);SRVR:BY2PR02MB201; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04583CED1A X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR02MB201; X-OriginatorOrg: amd4.onmicrosoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2015 15:44:22.7840 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: fde4dada-be84-483f-92cc-e026cbee8e96 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=fde4dada-be84-483f-92cc-e026cbee8e96;Ip=[165.204.84.222] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR02MB201 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/16/15 09:17, Al Stone wrote: > 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. > Catalin, For Seattle, you could use the https://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git acpi-5.1-v7, and it would also need the AHCI ACPI patch here (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/5/662). Thanks, Suravee From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com (Suravee Suthikulpanit) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:44:19 -0600 Subject: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <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> <54B92B99.5000604@linaro.org> Message-ID: <54B931D3.7040109@amd.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 1/16/15 09:17, Al Stone wrote: > 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. > Catalin, For Seattle, you could use the https://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git acpi-5.1-v7, and it would also need the AHCI ACPI patch here (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/5/662). Thanks, Suravee