Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHmME9qHnvwrxEue4Pdm_E1qZQGXFuR9orJSKCWj8fH5TSh6fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220228183355.9090-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <CAHp75VcjrD3kwN1BfWpjKXaVpG7MHfftMUscSGhcJfStm4b-Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXFmEAKJRHCiuXyGECCmOs0+xX9AVeBDxfuD0XuX2TQ2Uw@mail.gmail.com> <Yh0+LA8B1jw8tnl9@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yh0+LA8B1jw8tnl9@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:54:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qW4EiYU6_kTffMdK5ijJY1DF6YRt=gDjj1vKqDxB0Raw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v6] ACPI: allow longer device IDs
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:28 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is that this is clear abuse of the spec and:
> 1) we have to enable the broken, because it is already in the wild with
>    the comment that this is an issue
>
> AND
>
> 2) issue an ECR / work with MS to make sure they understand the problem.
>
> This can be done in parallel. What I meant as a prerequisite is to start doing
> 2) while we have 1) on table.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. If you want to get (2) going, by all means
go for it. I have no idea how to do this myself; Ard said something
about joining the UEFI forum as an individual something or another but
I don't think I'm the man for the job there. Is this something that
Intel can do with their existing membership (is that the right term?)
at the UEFI forum? Or maybe a Microsoft engineer on the list?

From my side, regarding (1), I'm basically just waiting for Rafael's
"Acked-by" (or an explicit nack) so I can put this in my tree and move
on.

Jason