From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:38:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
In-Reply-To: <5420A402.2060809@linaro.org>
References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <20140922194841.GA9868@amd> <20140922203136.GA32156@srcf.ucam.org>
 <2486199.jzqMgLksH8@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20140922222810.GA9421@srcf.ucam.org> <5420A402.2060809@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20140922223819.GA10057@srcf.ucam.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:34:42AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2014, 06:28AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:46:24AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 22, 2014 09:31:36 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>> Explicit Change Request. These can only be filed by paid-up members of 
> >>> the UEFI Forum, so I suspect this requirement is going to be unworkable 
> >>> (there's plenty of ACPI support code for large x86 vendors which isn't 
> >>> part of any ACPI spec).
> >> Why do you think so?
> > The IP rules in the membership agreements.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, I think there is no IP issues for the _DSD bindings,
> it just some key value pairs.

That paragraph is talking about ACPI support in general, not just the 
_DSD code.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org