From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rjw@rjwysocki.net (Rafael J. Wysocki)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 01:22:25 +0200
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>
 <20140922222810.GA9421@srcf.ucam.org> <5420A402.2060809@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <3015103.TVl3N7ml2X@vostro.rjw.lan>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 06:34:42 AM 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.

Well, if we are talking about the bindings themselves only, then as I said
previously that would be a hosted document rather than a UEFI specification
anyway, so I don't see how the "IP rules in the membership agreements" would
apply to that in any case.

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.