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: <20230702095735.860-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> <20230703-71f67eb66a037f5c0fb825c6@orel>
 <CAEEQ3w=7tBHyG=CvuktPN5cvfpY6ayamnbry6eOYxMDrPN+oZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBLGcwcvK55dZ1__wvWCtcw=XoKt=qki8g6C_QYo+TBqqJ=TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50F3BD62-78F1-456E-A44A-0C7D9A2D4113@jrtc27.com> <87bkgql8rq.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
 <CAEEQ3wnaaMvJ3=7udvAjiP3q36nvqAwb8sh34f+nO8Ua_83yFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sfa1toap.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <CAP6exY+gTSxU95nDK14z-Y1suKeXPkLzZ_BZqr-vRVGO9qmcxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP6exY+gTSxU95nDK14z-Y1suKeXPkLzZ_BZqr-vRVGO9qmcxg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:05:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ+HfNjgS0XHzG5G_cCsyO-TKRA4Q=KFkwxMZ2httiRGRyuc+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: obtain ACPI RSDP from FFI.
To:     ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?B?6L+Q6L6J5bSU?= <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com>,
        Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, jdelvare@suse.com,
        yc.hung@mediatek.com, angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com,
        allen-kh.cheng@mediatek.com, pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com,
        tinghan.shen@mediatek.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, geshijian@bytedance.com,
        weidong.wd@bytedance.com, graf@amazon.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Ron,

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 18:37, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trying hard not to get sucked into this argument, but it is, at
> least, impolite, to accuse us of engaging in hand-wavery. There's
> probably more UEFI expertise in coreboot and oreboot than most
> places, and that's precisely why we want a non-UEFI
> option. Familiarity with UEFI did not breed respect.

If my reply was interpreted as rude, please accept my apologies. That
was not my intention.

> So can we get back to the business at hand? bytedance may be the
> company proposing this change, but they are certainly not the only
> company interested in seeing it happen. A project I'm involved in
> needs this work to go through.

I noted that the discussion continued from Ard's reply (which, no
surprise, resonates with my worldview :-)):
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAMj1kXFZren0Q19DimwQaETCLz64D4bZQC5B2N=
=3Di3SAWHygkTQ@mail.gmail.com/
Let's continue there.


Bj=C3=B6rn