On 04/27/2015 03:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:45:29 PM Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
On 4/24/15, 21:28, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before back porting
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:45:29 PM Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> On 4/24/15, 21:28, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >> On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> >> > Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:45:29 PM Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
On 4/24/15, 21:28, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one
On 04/27/2015 03:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:45:29 PM Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
On 4/24/15, 21:28, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before
On 4/24/15, 21:28, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
>> > Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
>> > According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
>> >
On 4/24/15, 21:28, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI
On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
> > According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
> > So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM specific modules?
If this need to be implemented in ACPICA, then what about
On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:08:31 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM
On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote:
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM specific modules?
If this need to be implemented in ACPICA, then what about
org
> Subject: RE: [V8 PATCH 1/3] ACPICA: Add ACPI _CLS processing
>
> Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
> According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
> So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM specific module
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM specific modules?
If this need to be implemented in ACPICA, then what about the following device
identification
Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question.
According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific.
So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM specific modules?
If this need to be implemented in ACPICA, then what about the following device
identification
...@redhat.com; t...@kernel.org;
mj...@srcf.ucam.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; al.st...@linaro.org;
graeme.greg...@linaro.org; leo.du...@amd.com; linux-...@vger.kernel.org;
linux-a...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linaro-
a...@lists.linaro.org
Subject: RE: [V8 PATCH 1/3] ACPICA
On Monday, March 30, 2015 04:56:17 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> ACPI Device configuration often contain _CLS object to suppy PCI-defined
> class code for the device. This patch introduces logic to process the _CLS
> object.
>
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg
> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo
>
On Monday, March 30, 2015 04:56:17 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
ACPI Device configuration often contain _CLS object to suppy PCI-defined
class code for the device. This patch introduces logic to process the _CLS
object.
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com
16 matches
Mail list logo
