From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755207AbaIVWil (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:38:41 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:42710 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754119AbaIVWih (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:38:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:38:19 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Hanjun Guo Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Mark Rutland , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Lv Zheng , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Daniel Lezcano , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Jon Masters , Grant Likely , Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Liviu Dudau , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Graeme Gregory , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Message-ID: <20140922223819.GA10057@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140922194841.GA9868@amd> <20140922203136.GA32156@srcf.ucam.org> <2486199.jzqMgLksH8@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140922222810.GA9421@srcf.ucam.org> <5420A402.2060809@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5420A402.2060809@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:34:42AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On Sep 23, 2014, 06:28AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:46:24AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Monday, September 22, 2014 09:31:36 PM Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> Explicit Change Request. These can only be filed by paid-up members of > >>> the UEFI Forum, so I suspect this requirement is going to be unworkable > >>> (there's plenty of ACPI support code for large x86 vendors which isn't > >>> part of any ACPI spec). > >> Why do you think so? > > The IP rules in the membership agreements. > > If I'm not mistaken, I think there is no IP issues for the _DSD bindings, > it just some key value pairs. That paragraph is talking about ACPI support in general, not just the _DSD code. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org