From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756925AbaIQT7x (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:59:53 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:52889 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756840AbaIQT7s (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:59:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:59:32 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , 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, Graeme Gregory , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla , Darren Hart Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Message-ID: <20140917195932.GA21910@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <4416582.iOjLNrLDZE@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140917192259.GA18980@srcf.ucam.org> <1628662.T2ReQ4irMm@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1628662.T2ReQ4irMm@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:11:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 08:22:59 PM Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Using the information should be fine, but my understanding of the UEFI > > forum rules is that any submissions to UEFI specs must be from UEFI > > forum members - there are concerns around accidentally including > > patented material. > > The documents in question are not regarded as UEFI specs, however. They > are just hosted by UEFI. There's arguably some precedent for that - the ACPI vendor IDs and EFI System Partition name repositories are hosted rather than specs. But it seems like there's some qualitative difference between that kind of raw data and something that actually defines behaviour. But if the UEFI people feel comfortable with this, it's not a problem. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org