On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:34:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> I'd prefer to take the MFD patch through the MFD tree if that's
> possible. Are there any technical reasons why this would prove
> difficult?
I don't see any reasons why it cannot be taken via MFD tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 02:52:31 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > This is a second revision of the patches first submitted here [1].
> >
> > The recent publication of the ACPI 5.1 specification [2] adds a reserved
> > name
> > for Device Specif
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Mika Westerberg
wrote:
> This is a second revision of the patches first submitted here [1].
>
> The recent publication of the ACPI 5.1 specification [2] adds a reserved name
> for Device Specific Data (_DSD, Section 6.2.5). This mechanism allows for
> passing arbit
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 02:52:31 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> This is a second revision of the patches first submitted here [1].
>
> The recent publication of the ACPI 5.1 specification [2] adds a reserved name
> for Device Specific Data (_DSD, Section 6.2.5). This mechanism allows for
> pas
This is a second revision of the patches first submitted here [1].
The recent publication of the ACPI 5.1 specification [2] adds a reserved name
for Device Specific Data (_DSD, Section 6.2.5). This mechanism allows for
passing arbitrary hardware description data to the OS. The exact format of the
5 matches
Mail list logo
