From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / processor_core: Rework _PDC related stuff to make it more arch-independent Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:57:05 +0800 Message-ID: <530AED41.4060407@linaro.org> References: <1392740638-2479-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <3459962.GkY99aHQbc@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140221182424.GA5751@arm.com> <1408521.4TEdKhuRp5@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50]:51606 "EHLO mail-pb0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbaBXG5M (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:57:12 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rq2so6169164pbb.9 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:57:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lan Tianyu , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , "patches@linaro.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Joe Perches , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin On 2014-2-22 18:33, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 21 Feb 2014, at 23:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote= : >> On Friday, February 21, 2014 06:24:24 PM Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:50:22AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:23:55 AM Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> _PDC related stuff in processor_core.c is little bit X86/IA64 dep= endent, >>>>> rework the code to make it more arch-independent, no functional c= hange >>>>> in this patch. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >>>>> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory >>>> >>>> I've queued up patches [1,3-5/5] from this series for 3.15 (modulo= changelog >>>> modifications), but this one should be CCed to the x86 and ia64 ma= intainers. >>> >>> Thanks for taking these patches. I would however hold onto patch 3/= 5 as >>> this is still under discussion. Basically for patches specific to A= RM >>> ACPI I would really like to see more acks before being merged as th= at's >>> a new thing for us. >> >> OK, I'll drop [3/5] for now, then. >=20 > Thanks (it=92s only temporary ;)). >=20 >> I'm wondering, though, whose ACKs I should be waiting for before app= lying those >> patches? >=20 > Good question ;). In this particular case, there is an ongoing > discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn=92t anything > major, I would like to see some agreement and potentially an Ack from > the other party involved in the discussion (Sudeep). >=20 > There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it=92s > really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don=92t > think we have anyone in charge with deciding what=92s correct or not > (BTW, who are the people active both in the _ARM_ Linux kernel commun= ity > and the ACPI standardisation forum?). I'm in ASWG (ACPI spec working group) under UEFI, and Al Stone and Char= les (+cc Charles) are also in this forum. Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html