[PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:

Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
compensating changes after the first submission.

All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
tags.

 [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct acpi_bus_type
 [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
 [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
 [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they contain
 [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
 [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
 [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock stations
 [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices

Regards,
 Holger

[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/47378

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

On Fr 20. Jan - 01:18:18, Holger Macht wrote:
> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:

I successfully faked the sender of the patches from Matthew (now it
looks as they were sent by him) due to the use wrong use of git
format-patch. Sorry for that, really wasn't intended. Hope this is not a
problem.

Regards,
 Holger

> 
> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
> compensating changes after the first submission.
> 
> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
> tags.
> 
>  [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct acpi_bus_type
>  [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
>  [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>  [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they contain
>  [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>  [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>  [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock stations
>  [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
> 
> Regards,
>  Holger
> 
> [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/47378
> 

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 01:23 +0100, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Fr 20. Jan - 01:18:18, Holger Macht wrote:
> > Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
> > Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
> 
> I successfully faked the sender of the patches from Matthew (now it
> looks as they were sent by him) due to the use wrong use of git
> format-patch. Sorry for that, really wasn't intended. Hope this is not a
> problem.

Actually, it is; the way you sent them the first time:  From: in the
body is the correct way.  If you go about faking the sender, you're
likely to get rejected as spam if people do SPF checking.   Plus it's a
bit confusing for maintainers because I'd really like to know who sent
the patch to verify the signoff chain.

Other than this, it looks fine to me.

James

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

On Sat 21. Jan - 07:55:00, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 01:23 +0100, Holger Macht wrote:
> > On Fr 20. Jan - 01:18:18, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
> > > Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
> > 
> > I successfully faked the sender of the patches from Matthew (now it
> > looks as they were sent by him) due to the use wrong use of git
> > format-patch. Sorry for that, really wasn't intended. Hope this is not a
> > problem.
> 
> Actually, it is; the way you sent them the first time:  From: in the
> body is the correct way.  If you go about faking the sender, you're
> likely to get rejected as spam if people do SPF checking.   Plus it's a
> bit confusing for maintainers because I'd really like to know who sent
> the patch to verify the signoff chain.

Sure, I rather meant this like "hope it's not a problem this one
time". It was by plain mistake because my mutt took the "From:" header
as it should and I didn't notice. I also don't want people to send mails
in my name, that's what the apology actually was for, directed to
Matthew.

> 
> Other than this, it looks fine to me.

Thanks,
 Holger

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Lin Ming]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht <holger@homac.de> wrote:
> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>
> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
> compensating changes after the first submission.
>
> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
> tags.
>
>  [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct acpi_bus_type
>  [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
>  [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>  [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they contain
>  [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>  [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>  [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock stations
>  [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices

Hi Holger,

What's the status of these patches?

Some of my patches also need ata device binded to ACPI handle.
I hope these patches will be merged soon.

Thanks for the great work.

Regards,
Lin Ming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht <holger@homac.de> wrote:
> > Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
> > Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
> >
> > Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
> > Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
> > test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
> > compensating changes after the first submission.
> >
> > All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
> > tags.
> >
> >  [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct acpi_bus_type
> >  [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
> >  [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
> >  [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they contain
> >  [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
> >  [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
> >  [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock stations
> >  [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
> 
> Hi Holger,
> 
> What's the status of these patches?

They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James Bottomley)
people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone (Jeff
Garzik?) to pick them up.

Regards,
 Holger

 
> 
> Some of my patches also need ata device binded to ACPI handle.
> I hope these patches will be merged soon.
> 
> Thanks for the great work.
> 
> Regards,
> Lin Ming
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Jeff Garzik]

On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de>  wrote:
>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>
>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>
>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
>>> tags.
>>>
>>>   [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct acpi_bus_type
>>>   [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
>>>   [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>   [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they contain
>>>   [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>   [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>   [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock stations
>>>   [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>
>> Hi Holger,
>>
>> What's the status of these patches?
>
> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James Bottomley)
> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone (Jeff
> Garzik?) to pick them up.

I ACK'd for libata.  It's queued in libata-dev...  but looks like that 
did not get pushed out.  Should show up in the next linux-next.

	Jeff

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Lin Ming]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>
>> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>>
>>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
>>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
>>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>>
>>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
>>>> tags.
>>>>
>>>>  [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct
>>>> acpi_bus_type
>>>>  [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
>>>>  [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>>  [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
>>>> contain
>>>>  [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>>  [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>>  [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock
>>>> stations
>>>>  [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Holger,
>>>
>>> What's the status of these patches?
>>
>>
>> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James Bottomley)
>> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone (Jeff
>> Garzik?) to pick them up.
>
>
> I ACK'd for libata.  It's queued in libata-dev...  but looks like that did
> not get pushed out.  Should show up in the next linux-next.
>
>        Jeff

Hi,

I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git

Are they removed for some reason?

Regards,
Lin Ming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

On 27.03.2012 10:11, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org>  wrote:
>> On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>>
>>> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work on my
>>>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
>>>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>>>
>>>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
>>>>> tags.
>>>>>
>>>>>   [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in struct
>>>>> acpi_bus_type
>>>>>   [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device tree
>>>>>   [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>>>   [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
>>>>> contain
>>>>>   [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>>>   [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>>>   [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on dock
>>>>> stations
>>>>>   [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Holger,
>>>>
>>>> What's the status of these patches?
>>>
>>>
>>> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James Bottomley)
>>> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone (Jeff
>>> Garzik?) to pick them up.
>>
>>
>> I ACK'd for libata.  It's queued in libata-dev...  but looks like that did
>> not get pushed out.  Should show up in the next linux-next.
>>
>>         Jeff
>
> Hi,
>
> I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git

They've been there, also in linux-next. But now I'm not able to find a 
trace of them. Maybe the two fixes from the thread labeled "linux-next: 
dock_link_device is oopsy" on linux-kernel@ didn't find their way into 
the trees and so the patches were removed. Just guessing...

Regards,
  Holger

> Are they removed for some reason?

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Jeff Garzik]

On 04/02/2012 05:22 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
> On 27.03.2012 10:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>>>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>>>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work
>>>>>> on my
>>>>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
>>>>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
>>>>>> tags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in
>>>>>> struct
>>>>>> acpi_bus_type
>>>>>> [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device
>>>>>> tree
>>>>>> [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>>>> [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
>>>>>> contain
>>>>>> [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>>>> [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>>>> [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on
>>>>>> dock
>>>>>> stations
>>>>>> [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Holger,
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the status of these patches?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James
>>>> Bottomley)
>>>> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone
>>>> (Jeff
>>>> Garzik?) to pick them up.
>>>
>>>
>>> I ACK'd for libata. It's queued in libata-dev... but looks like that did
>>> not get pushed out. Should show up in the next linux-next.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
>
> They've been there, also in linux-next. But now I'm not able to find a
> trace of them. Maybe the two fixes from the thread labeled "linux-next:
> dock_link_device is oopsy" on linux-kernel@ didn't find their way into
> the trees and so the patches were removed. Just guessing...
>
> Regards,
> Holger
>
>> Are they removed for some reason?

They were removed because people had problems with them, and the patch 
authors did not engage and fix the problem(s).  Matthew Garrett spoke up 
and said he didn't have time to investigate, so the patches were dropped.

	Jeff

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

On 02.04.2012 17:45, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 05:22 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>> On 27.03.2012 10:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org>  wrote:
>>>> On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>>>>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>>>>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work
>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
>>>>>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by
>>>>>>> tags.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in
>>>>>>> struct
>>>>>>> acpi_bus_type
>>>>>>> [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device
>>>>>>> tree
>>>>>>> [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>>>>> [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>> [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>>>>> [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>>>>> [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on
>>>>>>> dock
>>>>>>> stations
>>>>>>> [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Holger,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the status of these patches?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James
>>>>> Bottomley)
>>>>> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone
>>>>> (Jeff
>>>>> Garzik?) to pick them up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I ACK'd for libata. It's queued in libata-dev... but looks like that did
>>>> not get pushed out. Should show up in the next linux-next.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
>>
>> They've been there, also in linux-next. But now I'm not able to find a
>> trace of them. Maybe the two fixes from the thread labeled "linux-next:
>> dock_link_device is oopsy" on linux-kernel@ didn't find their way into
>> the trees and so the patches were removed. Just guessing...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Holger
>>
>>> Are they removed for some reason?
>
> They were removed because people had problems with them, and the patch
> authors did not engage and fix the problem(s).  Matthew Garrett spoke up
> and said he didn't have time to investigate, so the patches were dropped.

Do you have a pointer for the problems?

Thanks,
  Holger

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Jeff Garzik]

On 04/02/2012 12:43 PM, Holger Macht wrote:
> On 02.04.2012 17:45, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On 04/02/2012 05:22 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>> On 27.03.2012 10:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>>>>>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>>>>>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work
>>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of
>>>>>>>> Acked-by
>>>>>>>> tags.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in
>>>>>>>> struct
>>>>>>>> acpi_bus_type
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device
>>>>>>>> tree
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on
>>>>>>>> dock
>>>>>>>> stations
>>>>>>>> [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Holger,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the status of these patches?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James
>>>>>> Bottomley)
>>>>>> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone
>>>>>> (Jeff
>>>>>> Garzik?) to pick them up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I ACK'd for libata. It's queued in libata-dev... but looks like
>>>>> that did
>>>>> not get pushed out. Should show up in the next linux-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.
>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
>>>
>>> They've been there, also in linux-next. But now I'm not able to find a
>>> trace of them. Maybe the two fixes from the thread labeled "linux-next:
>>> dock_link_device is oopsy" on linux-kernel@ didn't find their way into
>>> the trees and so the patches were removed. Just guessing...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>> Are they removed for some reason?
>>
>> They were removed because people had problems with them, and the patch
>> authors did not engage and fix the problem(s). Matthew Garrett spoke up
>> and said he didn't have time to investigate, so the patches were dropped.
>
> Do you have a pointer for the problems?

You were CC'd...

	Jeff

Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Holger Macht]

On 02.04.2012 19:40, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 12:43 PM, Holger Macht wrote:
>> On 02.04.2012 17:45, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2012 05:22 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>>> On 27.03.2012 10:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org>  wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@homac.de>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
>>>>>>>>> Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
>>>>>>>>> Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work
>>>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>>>> test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> compensating changes after the first submission.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of
>>>>>>>>> Acked-by
>>>>>>>>> tags.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in
>>>>>>>>> struct
>>>>>>>>> acpi_bus_type
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device
>>>>>>>>> tree
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on
>>>>>>>>> dock
>>>>>>>>> stations
>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Holger,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the status of these patches?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James
>>>>>>> Bottomley)
>>>>>>> people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone
>>>>>>> (Jeff
>>>>>>> Garzik?) to pick them up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ACK'd for libata. It's queued in libata-dev... but looks like
>>>>>> that did
>>>>>> not get pushed out. Should show up in the next linux-next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.
>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
>>>>
>>>> They've been there, also in linux-next. But now I'm not able to find a
>>>> trace of them. Maybe the two fixes from the thread labeled "linux-next:
>>>> dock_link_device is oopsy" on linux-kernel@ didn't find their way into
>>>> the trees and so the patches were removed. Just guessing...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Holger
>>>>
>>>>> Are they removed for some reason?
>>>
>>> They were removed because people had problems with them, and the patch
>>> authors did not engage and fix the problem(s). Matthew Garrett spoke up
>>> and said he didn't have time to investigate, so the patches were dropped.
>>
>> Do you have a pointer for the problems?
>
> You were CC'd...

Ok, found them. However, wouldn't have made a difference because the 
solution doesn't seem to be easy. And I currently also don't have the 
time to do massive investigations. What a pity, but maybe a future time...

Thanks,
  Holger