Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 02.04.2012 17:45, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 04/02/2012 05:22 AM, Holger Macht wrote:
On 27.03.2012 10:11, Lin Ming wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On 02/09/2012 02:33 AM, Holger Macht wrote:

On Do 09. Feb - 14:46:11, Lin Ming wrote:

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Holger Macht<holger@xxxxxxxx>  wrote:

Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew
Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]:

Patch 1 is a new patch incorporating the corrections from James
Bottomley. Patch 6, 7 and 8 make the whole patch set actually work
on my
test hardware (Thinkpad x60/Thinkpad T60) by fixing minor issues and
compensating changes after the first submission.

All patches now contain the correct Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by

[PATCH 1/8] scsi: Add wrapper to access and set scsi_bus_type in
[PATCH 2/8] libata: Bind the Linux device tree to the ACPI device
[PATCH 3/8] libata: Migrate ACPI code over to new bindings
[PATCH 4/8] acpi: Add support for linking docks to the objects they
[PATCH 5/8] libata: Add links between removable devices and docks
[PATCH 6/8] libata: Generate and pass correct acpi handles
[PATCH 7/8] acpi: Prevent duplicate hotplug device registration on
[PATCH 8/8] libata: Use correct PCI devices

Hi Holger,

What's the status of these patches?

They've been ACKed by both ACPI (Len Brown) and libata (James
people, so I guess they are good to go and I'm waiting for someone
Garzik?) to pick them up.

I ACK'd for libata. It's queued in libata-dev... but looks like that did
not get pushed out. Should show up in the next linux-next.



I didn't find these patches in libata-dev tree.

They've been there, also in linux-next. But now I'm not able to find a
trace of them. Maybe the two fixes from the thread labeled "linux-next:
dock_link_device is oopsy" on linux-kernel@ didn't find their way into
the trees and so the patches were removed. Just guessing...


Are they removed for some reason?

They were removed because people had problems with them, and the patch
authors did not engage and fix the problem(s).  Matthew Garrett spoke up
and said he didn't have time to investigate, so the patches were dropped.

Do you have a pointer for the problems?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Site Home]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Rubini]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux