Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI
support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed under
GPLv2. We want to prevent this code from showing up in non-GPL
binaries which might become possible after we make ACPI builder code
available to users other th
Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from
seeping into non-GPL binaries"):
> Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI
> support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed under
> GPLv2. We want to prevent this code from sho
On 20/09/2016 01:19, "Boris Ostrovsky" wrote:
>Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI
>support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed under
>GPLv2. We want to prevent this code from showing up in non-GPL
>binaries which might become possible after
On 20/09/2016 11:14, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
>Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code
>from seeping into non-GPL binaries"):
>> Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI
>> support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed und
On 09/20/2016 06:14 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from
> seeping into non-GPL binaries"):
>> Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI
>> support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed und
Boris Ostrovsky writes ("Re: [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from
seeping into non-GPL binaries"):
> But yes, I can split dsdt.asl as well. Should we keep _S5 definition as
> GPL-only?
I think once we're going down this route there is no benefit in trying
to argue for individual bits
On 09/20/2016 10:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("Re: [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code
> from seeping into non-GPL binaries"):
>> But yes, I can split dsdt.asl as well. Should we keep _S5 definition as
>> GPL-only?
> I think once we're going down this route there is
>>> On 20.09.16 at 02:19, wrote:
> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/dsdt.asl
> +++ /dev/null
Please try to represent this as a move, not as a delete+create.
> +Scope ( \_SB.PCI0 )
> +{
> +Name ( BUFA, ResourceTemplate() { IRQ(Level, ActiveLow, Shared) { 5,
> 10, 11 } } )
> +
On 09/21/2016 06:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.09.16 at 02:19, wrote:
>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/dsdt.asl
>> +++ /dev/null
> Please try to represent this as a move, not as a delete+create.
This was done by 'git mv' and patches were generated with 'git
format-patch -M5 ...' so I
>>> On 21.09.16 at 15:34, wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 06:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.09.16 at 02:19, wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/dsdt.asl
>>> +++ /dev/null
>> Please try to represent this as a move, not as a delete+create.
>
> This was done by 'git mv' and patches were ge
10 matches
Mail list logo