On 2014-2-22 18:33, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On 21 Feb 2014, at 23:35, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2014 06:24:24 PM Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:50:22AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:23:55 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
_PDC related stuff in processor_core.c is little bit X86/IA64 dependent, rework the code to make it more arch-independent, no functional change in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory graeme.gregory@linaro.org
I've queued up patches [1,3-5/5] from this series for 3.15 (modulo changelog modifications), but this one should be CCed to the x86 and ia64 maintainers.
Thanks for taking these patches. I would however hold onto patch 3/5 as this is still under discussion. Basically for patches specific to ARM ACPI I would really like to see more acks before being merged as that's a new thing for us.
OK, I'll drop [3/5] for now, then.
Thanks (it’s only temporary ;)).
I'm wondering, though, whose ACKs I should be waiting for before applying those patches?
Good question ;). In this particular case, there is an ongoing discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn’t anything major, I would like to see some agreement and potentially an Ack from the other party involved in the discussion (Sudeep).
There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it’s really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don’t think we have anyone in charge with deciding what’s correct or not (BTW, who are the people active both in the _ARM_ Linux kernel community and the ACPI standardisation forum?).
I'm in ASWG (ACPI spec working group) under UEFI, and Al Stone and Charles (+cc Charles) are also in this forum.
Thanks Hanjun