From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:19:59 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v9 21/21] ARM64 / ACPI: additions of ACPI documentation
 for arm64
In-Reply-To: <54F05385.2080506@huawei.com>
References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <1424853601-6675-22-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <54F05385.2080506@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <54F07D0F.7080904@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Shannon,

On 2015?02?27? 19:22, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2015/2/25 16:40, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> +Not yet implemented are:
>> +
>> +	-- Section 10: power source and power meter devices
>> +
>> +	-- Section 11: thermal management
>> +
>> +	-- Section 12: embedded controllers interface
>> +
>> +	-- Section 13: SMBus interfaces
>> +
>> +	-- Section 17: NUMA support (prototypes have been submitted for
>> +	   review)
>> +
>>
>
> Here at the end of the file. Redundant blank line.
>
>> +ACPI is also important because hardware and OS vendors have already worked
>> +out how to use it to support the general purpose ecosystem. The infrastructure
>> +is in place, the bindings are in place, and the process is in place. DT does
>> +exactly what we need it to when working with vertically integrated devices,
>> +but we don?t have good processes for supporting what the server vendors need.
>> +We could potentially get there with DT, but doing so doesn?t buy us anything.
>> +ACPI already does what the hardware vendors need, Microsoft won?t collaborate
>> +with us on DT, and the hardware vendors would still need to provide two
>> +completely separate firmware interface; one for Linux and one for Windows.
>> +
>
> And Here at the end of the file. Redundant blank line.

Thanks a lot for the pointer, I will update it :)

Regards
Hanjun