netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v7 1/6] Documentation: ACPI: DSD: Document MDIO PHY

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VcR9UpDfTUWN_eFn5Q2cusPr08e5pTWKxGuqpHfL2AQ5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:26:01 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
        Jon <jon@...id-run.com>,
        Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux.cj@...il.com,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vikas Singh <vikas.singh@...esoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v7 1/6] Documentation: ACPI: DSD: Document MDIO PHY

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:59 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:34:37PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 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