On 26.08.2025 22:31, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:07:18AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.08.2025 22:09, Elliott Mitchell wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 10:14:42AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 14.08.2025 23:27, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: >>>>> On 8/14/25 02:55, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Parties interested in changing the support status of any component are >>>>>> the >>>>>> primary candidates to actually carry out the necessary work. >>>>> >>>>> What is that work? >>>> >>>> To determine what exactly needs doing is part of the exercise. I, for one, >>>> am >>>> unaware of a concrete written down set of things which need doing. >>> >>> Since you're not pointing to anything definite, could it be everything >>> has been resolved? >> >> Possible. Yet even then the state of things needs fully writing down, perhaps >> in a commit message for the patch changing the support status. That's likely >> still a time consuming job. > > Issue is much of this is better done by the people doing those projects. > Most of what I've done is checking a real hardware/software platform and > confirmed functionality. Presently it boots, but the framebuffer doesn't > work. VMs appear to work fine though. > > How does the attached patch look for enabling ACPI?
The main (Arm) effect of it I can't judge on. I don't, however, think that an experimental option can be default-on. That would effectively make it (security-)supported. And of course there are a few formal issues with the patch. Jan
