From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755087AbaIVXIO (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:08:14 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:43126 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754119AbaIVXIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:08:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:07:58 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Al Stone Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Hanjun Guo , 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: <20140922230758.GA11987@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> <5420A8F4.20909@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5420A8F4.20909@redhat.com> 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 Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:55:48PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > Exactly so. Or, collaborate with the hardware vendor, or a distro > or anyone else that is a Promoter or Contributor as defined by UEFI > [0]. The only thing to keep clear when doing so is who owns the > intellectual property for any proposed change; this is one of the > reasons the UEFI Forum has paid membership levels -- to pay for the > legal assistance to make sure that the specs can be freely used. As > someone who is part of the ASWG, I'd personally be glad to help out > however I can in this regard. No, it's not about IP ownership, it's about whether those contributing the IP have waived patent rights. All contributors to a UEFI spec must be members - it's not acceptable for a member to contribute material on behalf of a non-member. > I'm also curious as to what's being referred to as ACPI support > code for large x86 vendors which is not part of the spec; I *think* > I know what's being described but a specific example would really > help me understand better. Almost everything in drivers/platform/x86, the ACPI support code under drivers/gpu, the PCC code for HP servers, some of the USB-ACPI glue (defined by a Microsoft spec), some of the ACPI/TPM integration (defined by TCG), some hwmon code, probably a few other bits and pieces. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org