From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754871Ab3LHCpl (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Dec 2013 21:45:41 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:56275 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751941Ab3LHCpj (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Dec 2013 21:45:39 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC part1 PATCH 0/7] Make ACPI core running on ARM64 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 03:44:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Mark Brown , Mark Rutland , Matthew Garrett , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, "Russell King - ARM Linux" , patches@linaro.org, Olof Johansson , Catalin Marinas , Linus Walleij , Daniel Lezcano , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Hanjun Guo , Bjorn Helgaas , Jon Masters , Rob Herring , Grant Likely References: <1386088611-2801-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <201312052325.02603.arnd@arndb.de> <20131206135825.GG29268@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20131206135825.GG29268@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201312080344.56317.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ko+30or7yw0cH9eh38qBENFgG4W2G6SzmH8mwSYos7A pfIHCWw/4b0c0QGc7a9Up9e3Uc9mvp2V/NWehQQsp/nxS2PJgg gxEAS090GrdSQ2a7qtUeCpbu6EPDmpqwW5DzQ+O5zlOrRfAFlo IznXoy30lBRuU1M7RKpqPboWIncxNXzIBEImYnrrFY4/mU6bqF kR3WddGp+vzykctP1rwGtHekcLnoDwXDpzm3VMGBPWL2QIJXAH abAzDId+WPAdoTMsl2lIa8X65cqKBAxXR/sH65Tyz4f8S0cyoW iyldR8FwqsDvFD9GcpMvGxkuaNMnlT8ftmfsJtrrsZDPE6XUsK pBHup7uL40rUSvlGxqag= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 06 December 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:25:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > However, as I mentioned before I am much more worried about the parts that > > are not done (or not posted) yet and that will be required to actually > > have working support for a real server system. Until we know more about > > where this is heading, I think we should not merge any of the ARM specific > > parts of your patches. Any patches that are reasonable cleanups and bug > > fixes for the ACPI subsystem should of course get merged once they are > > reviewed. > > OTOH if it's well encapsulated, is going to be required for any kind of > ACPI use and gets to the point where people are OK with it by itself > then I'm not sure what we'd gain by keeping it out of tree - it'd make > the real system patch sets bigger and harder to review. I'd agree as soon as someone can convince me that we actually want ACPI support in the kernel for ARM64 servers. As far as I'm concerned it's quite possible that the people who have worked on this for the past couple of years behind closed doors know what they are doing and it will all be good, but it's also possible that it turns into a huge trainwreck once we see multiple implementations that have fundamentally incompatible requirements regarding what they want from ACPI and we end up not doing it at all. I just don't have enough information at this point to know which of the two is true and I'd like to ensure that accepting the patches that meet your criteria above would not be seen as an endorsement to do crazy stuff later. Arnd