From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:06:11 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
In-Reply-To: <1628662.T2ReQ4irMm@vostro.rjw.lan>
References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <4416582.iOjLNrLDZE@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140917192259.GA18980@srcf.ucam.org>
 <1628662.T2ReQ4irMm@vostro.rjw.lan>
Message-ID: <541A13E3.4010800@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 2014?09?18? 04:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 08:22:59 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:37:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>>> There are no implied IP issues with using the information there I know of and
>>> if there's any fine print anywhere that may suggest so, please let me know.
>> Using the information should be fine, but my understanding of the UEFI 
>> forum rules is that any submissions to UEFI specs must be from UEFI 
>> forum members - there are concerns around accidentally including 
>> patented material.
> The documents in question are not regarded as UEFI specs, however.  They
> are just hosted by UEFI.
>
>> The easy way around this is just for the bindings to 
>> be managed outside UEFI.
> Again, there's a difference between UEFI material and the UEFI hosting
> something (but not maintaining it).
>
> In principle, the bindings could be hosted by UEFI, but maintained by
> community members.

Thanks for the clarify, I totally agree with you, that's how things work now for such doc hosted
by UEFI.

For now,  _DSD will use the same binding as DT, is there any chance that _DSD will introduce
new bindings? if yes, how can we handle it?

Thanks
Hanjun