Re: [PATCH 2/2]: acpica/nfit: Rename not-armed bit definition

On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 01:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Toshi Kani [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 10:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines
bit 3 as follows.

  Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed
  to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is
  considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes.

This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be
confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set.

Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec.

Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <redacted>
Cc: Dan Williams <redacted>
Cc: Bob Moore <redacted>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <redacted>
---
 drivers/acpi/nfit.c              |    6 +++---
 drivers/acpi/nfit.h              |    2 +-
 include/acpi/actbl1.h            |    2 +-

This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so
any changes need to come through them.  But that said, I'm not sure we
need friendly names at this level.

I think the name is misleading, but I agree with the process and this 
patch2 can be dropped.  It'd be nice if the ACPICA project can pick it 
up later when they have a chance, though.

A good way to cause that to happen would be to send a patch to the
ACPICA development list + maintainers as per MAINTAINERS.

Oh, I see.  I did run get_maintainer.pl for this patch, but devel@acpica.org
 did not come out in output...  So, I did not realize this email list.

Thanks for the suggestion!
-Toshi