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;
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:25:28 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, rafael@kernel.org,
        rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, wanghuiqiang@huawei.com,
        zhangzekun11@huawei.com, wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com,
        tanxiaofei@huawei.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, huangdaode@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: pcc: rename platform interrupt bit macro
 name
Message-ID: <20221110102528.6kuznowxtqkouvlb@bogus>
References: <20221110015034.7943-1-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20221110015034.7943-2-lihuisong@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221110015034.7943-2-lihuisong@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:50:32AM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
> Currently, the name of platform interrupt bit macro, ACPI_PCCT_DOORBELL,
> is not very appropriate. The doorbell is generally considered as an action
> when send mailbox data. Actually, the macro value comes from Platform
> Interrupt in Platform Communications Channel Global Flags. If the bit is
> '1', it means that the platform is capable of generating an interrupt to
> indicate completion of a command.
>

This is touching ACPICA header file, so it must be submitted to ACPICA
separately following the guidelines in the github and imported into the
kernel.

However, I don't see any point in this change. Yes the language "doorbell"
is not used in this particular context in the spec, but it is implicit from
other parts. I am not opposing the change though if Rafael is OK and ACPICA
project accepts it.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep