Re: [PATCH 2/2]: acpica/nfit: Rename not-armed bit definition

[Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>]

On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 01:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 10:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote:
> > > > ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines
> > > > bit 3 as follows.
> > > > 
> > > >   Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed
> > > >   to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is
> > > >   considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes.
> > > > 
> > > > This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be
> > > > confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set.
> > > > 
> > > > Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
> > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/nfit.c              |    6 +++---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/nfit.h              |    2 +-
> > > >  include/acpi/actbl1.h            |    2 +-
> > > 
> > > This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so
> > > any changes need to come through them.  But that said, I'm not sure we
> > > need friendly names at this level.
> > 
> > I think the name is misleading, but I agree with the process and this 
> > patch2 can be dropped.  It'd be nice if the ACPICA project can pick it 
> > up later when they have a chance, though.
> 
> A good way to cause that to happen would be to send a patch to the
> ACPICA development list + maintainers as per MAINTAINERS.

Oh, I see.  I did run get_maintainer.pl for this patch, but devel@acpica.org
 did not come out in output...  So, I did not realize this email list.

Thanks for the suggestion!
-Toshi