From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757747AbbCESyM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:12 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:42620 "EHLO mail-pd0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750817AbbCESyL (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:54:18 -0800 From: Olof Johansson To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Grant Likely , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , Graeme Gregory , Sudeep Holla , Jon Masters , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Robert Richter , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Al Stone , Yi Li , Mark Langsdorf Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 21/21] ARM64 / ACPI: additions of ACPI documentation for arm64 Message-ID: <20150305185418.GG4932@quad.lixom.net> References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1424853601-6675-22-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1424853601-6675-22-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:40:01PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > From: Al Stone > > Two more documentation files are also being added: > (1) A verbatim copy of the "Why ACPI on ARM?" blog posting by Grant Likely, > which is also summarized in arm-acpi.txt, and This doesn't belong in the kernel tree. > (2) A section by section review of the ACPI spec (acpi_object_usage.txt) > to note recommendations and prohibitions on the use of the numerous > ACPI tables and objects. This sets out the current expectations of > the firmware by Linux very explicitly (or as explicitly as I can, for > now). I'll follow up with any comments on this separately (I.e. haven't read it yet). -Olof