On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:31:53PM +0000, Al Stone wrote:

On 01/15/2015 11:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Hanjun Guo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This is the v7 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up
for v3.20?

[snip ... ]

quoted

quoted

5. Platform support patches need verification and review
   * ACPI core works on at least the Foundation model, Juno, APM
Mustang, and AMD Seattle
   * There still are driver patches being discussed. See Al's summary
for details
   * As I argued above, the state of driver patches isn't going to be

We are still lacking here. To quote Al, "First version for AMD Seattle
has been posted to the public linaro-acpi mailing list for initial
review". Sorry but I don't follow linaro-acpi list. I don't know what's
in those patches and I can't tell which subsystems they touch, whether
maintainers agree with them. So in conclusion, I'm not confident the
arm64 hardware ACPI story looks that great yet.
 

This is solely my fault -- too much time on processes, email, and
documentation, not enough time on the Seattle patches.  And not
enough Seattles to go around for someone else to pick up the slack.

I am aware not everyone is subscribed to linaro-acpi; we use that
for internal review before posting more broadly, which is the only
reason I sent them there.

I'm in the middle of updating them as I have time, based on really
good feedback from Arnd; few of them are terribly new (the very first
posting was [0]) -- it's mostly a matter of rebasing, integrating
updates from AMD and others, and reacting to the comments.  One can
also see what these patches will probably look like via one of the
Fedora kernel trees [1].

Do you have some simple branch against mainline with just the ACPI core
patches and what's required for AMD Seattle? I have no plans to dig
through the Fedora kernels.

-- 
Catalin