On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:20:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:13 PM Florian Fainelli [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 7/24/20 1:12 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:20 PM Andrew Lunn [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I think we need to NACK all attempts to add ACPI support to phylib and
phylink until an authoritative ACPI Linux maintainer makes an
appearance and actively steers the work. And not just this patchset,
but all patchsets in the networking domain which have an ACPI
component.

It's funny, since I see ACPI mailing list and none of the maintainers
in the Cc here...
I'm not sure they pay attention to some (noise-like?) activity which
(from their perspective) happens on unrelated lists.

If you what you describe here is their perception of what is going on
here, that is very encouraging, we are definitively going to make progress.

I can't speak for them. As a maintainer in other areas I expect that
people Cc explicitly maintainer(s) if they want more attention.
Otherwise I look at the mails to the mailing list just from time to
time. But this is my expectation, don't take me wrong.

Sorry about this miss.
In some past patch-set, I had added Rafael but somehow missed him this time.

From the "MAINTAINERS" file, I got two maintainers. I don't know who else
can help with this discussion. I'll add others whom I know from ACPI list.
M:      "Rafael J. Wysocki" [off-list ref]
M:      Len Brown [off-list ref]

If you know others who can help, please add.

Hi ACPI experts,
Would you please help review this patchset and guide us.

Please see the discussion on this patchset here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20200715090400.4733-1-calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com/T/#t (local)

Thanks
Calvin