On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:59 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:34:37PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

Hi Everybody

So i think it is time to try to bring this discussion to some sort of
conclusion.

No ACPI maintainer is willing to ACK any of these patches. Nor are
they willing to NACK them. ACPI maintainers simply don't want to get
involved in making use of ACPI in networking.

I personally don't have the knowledge to do ACPI correctly, review
patches, point people in the right direction. I suspect the same can
be said for the other PHY maintainers.

Having said that, there is clearly a wish from vendors to make use of
ACPI in the networking subsystem to describe hardware.

How do we go forward?

For the moment, we will need to NACK all patches adding ACPI support
to the PHY subsystem.

Vendors who really do want to use ACPI, not device tree, probably
need to get involved in standardisation. Vendors need to submit a
proposal to UEFI and get it accepted.

Developers should try to engage with the ACPI maintainers and see
if they can get them involved in networking. Patches with an
Acked-by from an ACPI maintainer will be accepted, assuming they
fulfil all the other usual requirements. But please don't submit
patches until you do have an ACPI maintainer on board. We don't
want to spamming the lists with NACKs all the time.

For the record, this statement reflects my position as well (as one
of the named phylib maintainers).  Thanks Andrew.

Again, folks, you are discussing something without direct Cc'ing to
them (I see a subset? of the maintainers we discussed in another
mail).
I believe that many maintainers are using some type of scoring for
their emails and Cc'ing directly increases chances to get a reply.
Also you have at least two or three people in ACPI/arm64. What do they think?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko