Ben Guthro
2013-Jul-01 11:48 UTC
[PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with
reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get
synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so
requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the
hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep.
This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as
failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface,
there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that
alternative interface).
The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support
v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of
git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com>
Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com>
Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com>
Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change
v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems
Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8
v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies
Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL
More bool vs u8 fixes
v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change,
so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail.
v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch
Added warning in tboot early return code
Added Reviewed-by lines
Ben Guthro (5):
acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code
acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path
acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended
parameter
x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available
arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c | 9 ++++++++-
drivers/acpi/acpica/hwesleep.c | 7 +++++++
drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c | 3 +--
drivers/acpi/osl.c | 16 ++++++++--------
drivers/xen/acpi.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
include/acpi/acpiosxf.h | 6 ++++++
include/linux/acpi.h | 9 +++------
include/xen/acpi.h | 4 ++--
include/xen/interface/platform.h | 7 ++++---
9 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
Ben Guthro
2013-Jul-08 00:13 UTC
Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote:> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with > reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get > synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so > requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the > hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. > > This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as > failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, > there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that > alternative interface). > > The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support > v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of > git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> > Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com> > Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com> > Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com> > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change > v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems > Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 > v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies > Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL > More bool vs u8 fixes > v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change, > so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail. > v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch > Added warning in tboot early return code > Added Reviewed-by lines > > Ben Guthro (5): > acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code > acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path > acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended > parameter > x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep > xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is availableRafael, Bob - Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking? If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed? Thanks for your time. Ben> > arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c | 9 ++++++++- > drivers/acpi/acpica/hwesleep.c | 7 +++++++ > drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c | 3 +-- > drivers/acpi/osl.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > drivers/xen/acpi.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- > include/acpi/acpiosxf.h | 6 ++++++ > include/linux/acpi.h | 9 +++------ > include/xen/acpi.h | 4 ++-- > include/xen/interface/platform.h | 7 ++++--- > 9 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Ben Guthro
2013-Jul-08 13:08 UTC
Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On 07/08/2013 09:10 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:> On Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:13:15 PM Ben Guthro wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote: >>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with >>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get >>> synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so >>> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the >>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. >>> >>> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as >>> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, >>> there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that >>> alternative interface). >>> >>> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support >>> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> >>> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com> >>> Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com> >>> Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com> >>> Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com> >>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> >>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> >>> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change >>> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems >>> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 >>> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies >>> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL >>> More bool vs u8 fixes >>> v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change, >>> so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail. >>> v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch >>> Added warning in tboot early return code >>> Added Reviewed-by lines >>> >>> Ben Guthro (5): >>> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code >>> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path >>> acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended >>> parameter >>> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep >>> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available >> >> Rafael, Bob - >> >> Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking? >> If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed? > > Well, I''m afraid you need to give us some more time to process that, > sorry.My apologies - I know it is a busy time during the merge window. I did not mean to seem impatient. With the volume of things on the mailing list, I merely wanted to try to avoid the series getting buried. If a week is too frequent to re-bump a series, do you have a set of recommendations of how to best interact with your workflow? I''m just trying to balance people''s time to review such things, with the volume of the list. Thanks for your time. Ben
Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-Jul-08 13:10 UTC
Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:13:15 PM Ben Guthro wrote:> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote: > > In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with > > reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get > > synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so > > requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the > > hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. > > > > This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as > > failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, > > there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that > > alternative interface). > > > > The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support > > v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of > > git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> > > Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com> > > Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com> > > Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com> > > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change > > v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems > > Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 > > v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies > > Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL > > More bool vs u8 fixes > > v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change, > > so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail. > > v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch > > Added warning in tboot early return code > > Added Reviewed-by lines > > > > Ben Guthro (5): > > acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code > > acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path > > acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended > > parameter > > x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep > > xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available > > Rafael, Bob - > > Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking? > If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed?Well, I''m afraid you need to give us some more time to process that, sorry. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
Ben Guthro
2013-Jul-22 12:44 UTC
Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Ben Guthro <Benjamin.Guthro@citrix.com> wrote:> > > On 07/08/2013 09:10 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:13:15 PM Ben Guthro wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with >>>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get >>>> synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so >>>> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the >>>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. >>>> >>>> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as >>>> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, >>>> there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that >>>> alternative interface). >>>> >>>> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support >>>> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of >>>> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> >>>> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com> >>>> Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com> >>>> Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com> >>>> Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com> >>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> >>>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change >>>> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems >>>> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 >>>> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies >>>> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL >>>> More bool vs u8 fixes >>>> v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change, >>>> so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail. >>>> v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch >>>> Added warning in tboot early return code >>>> Added Reviewed-by lines >>>> >>>> Ben Guthro (5): >>>> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code >>>> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path >>>> acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended >>>> parameter >>>> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep >>>> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available >>> >>> Rafael, Bob - >>> >>> Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking? >>> If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed? >> >> Well, I''m afraid you need to give us some more time to process that, >> sorry. > > My apologies - I know it is a busy time during the merge window. I did > not mean to seem impatient. > > With the volume of things on the mailing list, I merely wanted to try to > avoid the series getting buried. If a week is too frequent to re-bump a > series, do you have a set of recommendations of how to best interact > with your workflow?Rafael (et al.) I never heard back on this point of how you prefer your workflow to proceed - that is, if I haven''t heard anything in a couple weeks - should I try to re-bump the thread? Since this was sent around the time of the merge window, I realize there were other things to occupy people''s time. Now that rc2 is out - I''m hoping that the dust has settled a bit, such that there may be a cycle, or two to review this series. Thanks for your time Ben> > I''m just trying to balance people''s time to review such things, with the > volume of the list. > > Thanks for your time. > > Ben > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-Jul-22 12:57 UTC
Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Monday, July 22, 2013 08:44:08 AM Ben Guthro wrote:> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Ben Guthro <Benjamin.Guthro@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 07/08/2013 09:10 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:13:15 PM Ben Guthro wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with > >>>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get > >>>> synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so > >>>> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the > >>>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. > >>>> > >>>> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as > >>>> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, > >>>> there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that > >>>> alternative interface). > >>>> > >>>> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support > >>>> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of > >>>> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> > >>>> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > >>>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > >>>> Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>>> > >>>> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change > >>>> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems > >>>> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 > >>>> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies > >>>> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL > >>>> More bool vs u8 fixes > >>>> v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change, > >>>> so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail. > >>>> v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch > >>>> Added warning in tboot early return code > >>>> Added Reviewed-by lines > >>>> > >>>> Ben Guthro (5): > >>>> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code > >>>> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path > >>>> acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended > >>>> parameter > >>>> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep > >>>> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available > >>> > >>> Rafael, Bob - > >>> > >>> Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking? > >>> If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed? > >> > >> Well, I''m afraid you need to give us some more time to process that, > >> sorry. > > > > My apologies - I know it is a busy time during the merge window. I did > > not mean to seem impatient. > > > > With the volume of things on the mailing list, I merely wanted to try to > > avoid the series getting buried. If a week is too frequent to re-bump a > > series, do you have a set of recommendations of how to best interact > > with your workflow? > > Rafael (et al.) > > I never heard back on this point of how you prefer your workflow to > proceed - that is, if I haven''t heard anything in a couple weeks - > should I try to re-bump the thread?I don''t think you need to. I''m waiting for Bob''s comments at this point. Bob, do you have any objections agains the Ben''s patches? Rafael> Since this was sent around the time of the merge window, I realize > there were other things to occupy people''s time. > Now that rc2 is out - I''m hoping that the dust has settled a bit, such > that there may be a cycle, or two to review this series. > > Thanks for your time > > Ben > > > > > I''m just trying to balance people''s time to review such things, with the > > volume of the list. > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > Ben > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-Jul-27 14:08 UTC
Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Monday, July 22, 2013 08:44:08 AM Ben Guthro wrote:> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Ben Guthro <Benjamin.Guthro@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 07/08/2013 09:10 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:13:15 PM Ben Guthro wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with > >>>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn''t get > >>>> synchronized: The new code doesn''t call the hook function (if so > >>>> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the > >>>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. > >>>> > >>>> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as > >>>> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, > >>>> there doesn''t even appear to be precautions to deal with that > >>>> alternative interface). > >>>> > >>>> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support > >>>> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of > >>>> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> > >>>> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > >>>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > >>>> Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>>> > >>>> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change > >>>> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems > >>>> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 > >>>> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies > >>>> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL > >>>> More bool vs u8 fixes > >>>> v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change, > >>>> so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail. > >>>> v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch > >>>> Added warning in tboot early return code > >>>> Added Reviewed-by lines > >>>> > >>>> Ben Guthro (5): > >>>> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code > >>>> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path > >>>> acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended > >>>> parameter > >>>> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep > >>>> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available > >>> > >>> Rafael, Bob - > >>> > >>> Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking? > >>> If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed? > >> > >> Well, I''m afraid you need to give us some more time to process that, > >> sorry. > > > > My apologies - I know it is a busy time during the merge window. I did > > not mean to seem impatient. > > > > With the volume of things on the mailing list, I merely wanted to try to > > avoid the series getting buried. If a week is too frequent to re-bump a > > series, do you have a set of recommendations of how to best interact > > with your workflow? > > Rafael (et al.) > > I never heard back on this point of how you prefer your workflow to > proceed - that is, if I haven''t heard anything in a couple weeks - > should I try to re-bump the thread? > > Since this was sent around the time of the merge window, I realize > there were other things to occupy people''s time. > Now that rc2 is out - I''m hoping that the dust has settled a bit, such > that there may be a cycle, or two to review this series.I''ve just replied to a [0/5] from a previous series, here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=137493312722239&w=2 Thanks, Rafael