From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755101AbaIVWez (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:34:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:59252 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754487AbaIVWex (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:34:53 -0400 Message-ID: <5420A402.2060809@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:34:42 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Garrett 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 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> In-Reply-To: <20140922222810.GA9421@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks Hanjun