From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754229AbbAPKUw (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:20:52 -0500 Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:35591 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754177AbbAPKUs (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:20:48 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:20:36 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Al Stone Cc: "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Bjorn Helgaas , Mark Brown , Rob Herring , Robert Richter , Randy Dunlap , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Timur Tabi , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Yijing Wang , ACPI Devel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linaro-acpi Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54B831C9.3060700@redhat.com> 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 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. -- Catalin