From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:57:05 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / processor_core: Rework _PDC related stuff to make it more arch-independent In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <530AED41.4060407@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 dependent, >>>>> rework the code to make it more arch-independent, no functional change >>>>> 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 maintainers. >>> >>> Thanks for taking these patches. I would however hold onto patch 3/5 as >>> this is still under discussion. Basically for patches specific to ARM >>> ACPI I would really like to see more acks before being merged as that's >>> a new thing for us. >> >> OK, I'll drop [3/5] for now, then. > > Thanks (it?s only temporary ;)). > >> I'm wondering, though, whose ACKs I should be waiting for before applying those >> patches? > > Good question ;). In this particular case, there is an ongoing > discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn?t anything > major, I would like to see some agreement and potentially an Ack from > the other party involved in the discussion (Sudeep). > > There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it?s > really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don?t > think we have anyone in charge with deciding what?s correct or not > (BTW, who are the people active both in the _ARM_ Linux kernel community > and the ACPI standardisation forum?). I'm in ASWG (ACPI spec working group) under UEFI, and Al Stone and Charles (+cc Charles) are also in this forum. Thanks Hanjun