RE: About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Zheng, Lv]

Hi, Octavian

> From: Octavian Purdila [mailto:octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 2:03 PM
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi, Octavian
> >
> 
> Hi Lv,
> 
> > I noticed there are 2 patches you've sent to the community.
> > But unfortunately I didn't find them in my mailbox.
> > Let me comment you here.
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5501621/
> > This patch seem to be correct.
> > But Rafael should merge it directly via Linux because acpi_unload_table_id() is not in the ACPICA upstream.
> 
> OK, thanks for letting me know. Rafel, does the patch look ok to you?
> 
> > We expect the OSPMs to use acpi_unload_parent_table() instead.
> > I have a divergences reduction series to achieve the transition.
> > But they are pending for review for almost half a year.
> > If you have an environment to test.
> > Could you help to test this again?
> > I can prepare the patchset for you.
> >
> 
> Sure, if you can point me to the patch-set I can test it on my setup.

I didn't have environment to test, so let me send it as RFC with some pci-hotplug/ia64 guys Cced...

Thanks
-Lv


> 
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5501561/
> > This patch is correct, I've put it in the 201501 ACPICA release materials for review:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5501621/
> > The patch can be found at:
> > https://github.com/zetalog/acpica/commit/281ff873
> > So if it is merged, you'll see it in the upstream after 201501 ACPICA release cycle.
> > And hence Linux trees doesn't need to merge this patch directly.
> >
> 
> Thanks,
> Tavi
N‹§²æ¸›yú²X¬¶ÇvØ–)Þ{.nlj·¥Š{±‘êX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚj:+v‰¨¾«‘êZ+€Êzf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûÿû®w¥¢¸?™¨è&¢)ßf”ùy§m…á«a¶Úÿ0¶ìå