From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [net-next: PATCH 0/8] Armada 7k/8k PP2 ACPI support Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:53:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20180119185353.GF13094@lunn.ch> References: <20180108145312.GH10940@lunn.ch> <20180108151453.GB31502@xora-haswell> <20180108154243.GA30962@lunn.ch> <20180109101941.GD31502@xora-haswell> <20180109130012.GA27447@lunn.ch> <20180118123141.GA2839@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20180118130026.GG32299@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marcin Wojtas Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Graeme Gregory , Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "" , "David S. Miller" , Russell King - ARM Linux , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Florian Fainelli , Antoine T?nart , Thomas Petazzoni , Gregory CLEMENT , Ezequiel Garcia List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > Since I have a code that can be tested and easily modified to use > different ACPI approaches with real platform MDIO controller > (mvmdio.c) and NIC (mvpp2.c), in coming weeks I may be able to find > some time to prepare a proof of concept based on GenericSerialBus. > Please expect some RFC patches hopefully right after the coming merge > window is closed. It would also be interesting to know how the standardisation process works. I'm sure these is a FAQs, so maybe somebody could point us towards it. Do we need to submit a proposed extension to the ACPI standard at the same time as the patch? Should we not accept the code into Linux until the proposal has been accepted? Or can we accept the code provisionally, with the understanding that if the ACPI committee rejects the extension, or suggest alternations, we can take the code out of Linux without having to worry about backwards compatibility? Thanks Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrew@lunn.ch (Andrew Lunn) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:53:53 +0100 Subject: [net-next: PATCH 0/8] Armada 7k/8k PP2 ACPI support In-Reply-To: References: <20180108145312.GH10940@lunn.ch> <20180108151453.GB31502@xora-haswell> <20180108154243.GA30962@lunn.ch> <20180109101941.GD31502@xora-haswell> <20180109130012.GA27447@lunn.ch> <20180118123141.GA2839@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20180118130026.GG32299@lunn.ch> Message-ID: <20180119185353.GF13094@lunn.ch> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > Since I have a code that can be tested and easily modified to use > different ACPI approaches with real platform MDIO controller > (mvmdio.c) and NIC (mvpp2.c), in coming weeks I may be able to find > some time to prepare a proof of concept based on GenericSerialBus. > Please expect some RFC patches hopefully right after the coming merge > window is closed. It would also be interesting to know how the standardisation process works. I'm sure these is a FAQs, so maybe somebody could point us towards it. Do we need to submit a proposed extension to the ACPI standard at the same time as the patch? Should we not accept the code into Linux until the proposal has been accepted? Or can we accept the code provisionally, with the understanding that if the ACPI committee rejects the extension, or suggest alternations, we can take the code out of Linux without having to worry about backwards compatibility? Thanks Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756163AbeASSyP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:54:15 -0500 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:56806 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755830AbeASSyH (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:54:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:53:53 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Marcin Wojtas Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Graeme Gregory , Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "" , "David S. Miller" , Russell King - ARM Linux , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Florian Fainelli , Antoine T?nart , Thomas Petazzoni , Gregory CLEMENT , Ezequiel Garcia , Nadav Haklai , Neta Zur Hershkovits , Grzegorz Jaszczyk , Tomasz Nowicki , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [net-next: PATCH 0/8] Armada 7k/8k PP2 ACPI support Message-ID: <20180119185353.GF13094@lunn.ch> References: <20180108145312.GH10940@lunn.ch> <20180108151453.GB31502@xora-haswell> <20180108154243.GA30962@lunn.ch> <20180109101941.GD31502@xora-haswell> <20180109130012.GA27447@lunn.ch> <20180118123141.GA2839@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20180118130026.GG32299@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 > Since I have a code that can be tested and easily modified to use > different ACPI approaches with real platform MDIO controller > (mvmdio.c) and NIC (mvpp2.c), in coming weeks I may be able to find > some time to prepare a proof of concept based on GenericSerialBus. > Please expect some RFC patches hopefully right after the coming merge > window is closed. It would also be interesting to know how the standardisation process works. I'm sure these is a FAQs, so maybe somebody could point us towards it. Do we need to submit a proposed extension to the ACPI standard at the same time as the patch? Should we not accept the code into Linux until the proposal has been accepted? Or can we accept the code provisionally, with the understanding that if the ACPI committee rejects the extension, or suggest alternations, we can take the code out of Linux without having to worry about backwards compatibility? Thanks Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [net-next: PATCH 0/8] Armada 7k/8k PP2 ACPI support Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:53:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20180119185353.GF13094@lunn.ch> References: <20180108145312.GH10940@lunn.ch> <20180108151453.GB31502@xora-haswell> <20180108154243.GA30962@lunn.ch> <20180109101941.GD31502@xora-haswell> <20180109130012.GA27447@lunn.ch> <20180118123141.GA2839@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20180118130026.GG32299@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Graeme Gregory , Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "" , "David S. Miller" , Russell King - ARM Linux , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Florian Fainelli , Antoine T?nart , Thomas Petazzoni , Gregory CLEMENT , Ezequiel Garcia Return-path: Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:56806 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755830AbeASSyH (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:54:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Since I have a code that can be tested and easily modified to use > different ACPI approaches with real platform MDIO controller > (mvmdio.c) and NIC (mvpp2.c), in coming weeks I may be able to find > some time to prepare a proof of concept based on GenericSerialBus. > Please expect some RFC patches hopefully right after the coming merge > window is closed. It would also be interesting to know how the standardisation process works. I'm sure these is a FAQs, so maybe somebody could point us towards it. Do we need to submit a proposed extension to the ACPI standard at the same time as the patch? Should we not accept the code into Linux until the proposal has been accepted? Or can we accept the code provisionally, with the understanding that if the ACPI committee rejects the extension, or suggest alternations, we can take the code out of Linux without having to worry about backwards compatibility? Thanks Andrew