ACPI

[Jon Masters]

On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:52:25PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> 
>> Matthew, good points! Suffice it to say many productive conversations 
>> have occurred recently with regard to openness. I am constrained 
>> indeed, and somewhat willingly because that is the only way to engage 
>> with everyone who might (or might not) be involved in the ARM 
>> ecosystem in the timeframe that will matter in the medium/longer term 
>> (this is a decade+ long story). As you know, I'm a huge fan of 
>> standards (especially openly published ones), and in particular of 
>> having one way to do things that will work for an entire ecosystem 
>> (beyond just Linux), because that's how we get to an open platform 
>> that anyone can target. That's not the natural course things would 
>> take without steering. In the ARM space, the natural course might be 
>> to create vertical solutions that, while awesome, are harder to target 
>> with a general purpose one-size-fits-all OS story. I'll look forward 
>> to seeing more announcements coming soon.
> 
> That seems to be a very verbose way to say "We have no plans to make 
> sure this is going to work for upstream Linux". I'm disappointed to see 
> Red Hat play along with this.

Matthew, it's a very verbose way to say "this is being worked on". The need to get specifications and standards out into public is acutely understood. It's something I've been pushing on for many many months, and it's something that I expect to see changing soon.  That's really all I'm going to say about it for the moment. Meanwhile, I hope that the ACPI patches being worked on (very very hard, by very awesome people) will be reviewed and considered on their merits.

Jon.