Re: [PATCH 2/2]: acpica/nfit: Rename not-armed bit definition

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 10:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines
>> > bit 3 as follows.
>> >
>> >   Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed
>> >   to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is
>> >   considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes.
>> >
>> > This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be
>> > confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set.
>> >
>> > Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/acpi/nfit.c              |    6 +++---
>> >  drivers/acpi/nfit.h              |    2 +-
>> >  include/acpi/actbl1.h            |    2 +-
>>
>> This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so
>> any changes need to come through them.  But that said, I'm not sure we
>> need friendly names at this level.
>
> I think the name is misleading, but I agree with the process and this patch2
> can be dropped.  It'd be nice if the ACPICA project can pick it up later
> when they have a chance, though.

A good way to cause that to happen would be to send a patch to the
ACPICA development list + maintainers as per MAINTAINERS.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/