From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:48:18 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v8 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <20150212100235.GA30412@rric.localhost> References: <1422881149-8177-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150212100235.GA30412@rric.localhost> Message-ID: <54DD65F2.9050108@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?02?12? 18:02, Robert Richter wrote: > On 02.02.15 20:45:28, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> This is the v8 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1, there are >> some updates since v7: >> >> - Add two more documantation to explain why we need ACPI in ARM64 servers >> by Grant, and recommendations and prohibitions on the use of the numerous >> ACPI tables and objects by Al Stone. >> >> - Add two patches which is need to map acpi tables after acpi_gbl_permanent_mmap >> is set >> >> - Add another patch "dt / chosen: Add linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb property" >> to address that if firmware providing no dtb, we can try ACPI configuration data >> even if no "acpi=force" is passed in early parameters. (I think ACPI for XEN and >> kexec need consider sperately as disscussed, correct me if I'm wrong). >> >> - Add CC in the patch to the subsystem maintainers and modify the subject >> of the patch to explicitly show the subsystem touched by this patch set, >> please help us to review and ack them if they make sense, thanks. >> >> - Add Tested-by from Qualcomm and Redhat; >> >> - Make ACPI depends on PCI suggested by Catalin; >> >> - Clean up SMP init function as Lorenzo suggested, remove physical >> CPU hot-plug code in the patch; >> >> - Address some comments from Marc and explicitly state that will >> implment statcked irqdomain and GIC init framework when GICv3 and >> ITS, GICv2m are implemented; >> >> - Rebased on top of 3.19-rc7. > > Patches tested on Cavium ThunderX. For the whole series: > > Tested-by: Robert Richter > Acked-by: Robert Richter Hi Robert, thank you very much. I'm going to send out v9 to address some of the comments, I think your Acked-by still apply if no objection from you :) Thanks Hanjun