About 2 ACPICA table patches

About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Zheng, Lv]

Hi, Octavian

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.
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.

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 and best regards
-Lv

Re: About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Octavian Purdila]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@intel.com> 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.

> 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

Re: About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Octavian Purdila]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 05:02:31 PM Octavian Purdila wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@intel.com> 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?
>
> I'm Rafael, but that's OK.
>

Oops, sorry about that, typo :(

What about patch 3 of the original set [1], does it look better now?

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/16/290

Re: About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 05:02:31 PM Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@intel.com> 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?

I'm Rafael, but that's OK.

Yes, the patch looks fine to me, so I can apply it.


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 05:05:07 PM Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, January 17, 2015 05:02:31 PM Octavian Purdila wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@intel.com> 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?
> >
> > I'm Rafael, but that's OK.
> >
> 
> Oops, sorry about that, typo :(
> 
> What about patch 3 of the original set [1], does it look better now?
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/16/290

I'm not entirely fond of it to be honest, but let me reply to it directly
(if I can find the original).


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

RE: About 2 ACPICA table patches

[Zheng, Lv]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1782 bytes --]

Hi, Octavian

> From: Octavian Purdila [mailto:octavian.purdila@intel.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 2:03 PM
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@intel.com> 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
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥