linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

Hi Len,

Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a conflict in
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c between commit 4f8429166818 ("ACPICA:
Cleanup PM_TIMER_FREQUENCY definition") from the pm tree and commit
41cdb0efc42e ("ACPI / idle: remove unused definition") from the acpi tree.

I fixed it up (The latter removed the lines modified by the former, so I
did that) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree

[Len Brown]

On 02/10/2013 08:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Len,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a conflict in
> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c between commit 4f8429166818 ("ACPICA:
> Cleanup PM_TIMER_FREQUENCY definition") from the pm tree and commit
> 41cdb0efc42e ("ACPI / idle: remove unused definition") from the acpi tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (The latter removed the lines modified by the former, so I
> did that) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> 

Thank you Stephen,
Go ahead and keep these two merge fix-ups.

We'll either merge the rjw and the lenb trees before
sending to Linus, or let him repeat your merge
fix-ups as he likes to do.

BTW. Rafael's "pm" tree now carries the ACPI patch stream,
so it is probably a mis-representation to call my tree the "acpi" tree.
My tree is primarily focused on the "idle" part of pm these days.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 408 bytes --]

Hi Len,

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:06 -0500 Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> BTW. Rafael's "pm" tree now carries the ACPI patch stream,
> so it is probably a mis-representation to call my tree the "acpi" tree.
> My tree is primarily focused on the "idle" part of pm these days.

OK, I have renamed your tree to "idle".

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

RE: linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree

[Zheng, Lv]

> Hi Len,
> 
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:06 -0500 Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > BTW. Rafael's "pm" tree now carries the ACPI patch stream, so it is
> > probably a mis-representation to call my tree the "acpi" tree.
> > My tree is primarily focused on the "idle" part of pm these days.
> 
> OK, I have renamed your tree to "idle".

Thanks for fixing the conflicts.

The new ACPICA release contains a patch renaming the PM_TIMER_FREQUENCY macro.
A further CA release patch cleans up the repo (pm/linux-next) where the release patch set based on.
The conflicts would happen if other repos contained new codes using the old macro definition.

Thanks
-Lv

linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

Hi Len,

Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/kernel/process.c between commit 43720bd60143 ("PM / tracing:
remove deprecated power trace API") from the pm tree and commit
69fb3676df33 ("x86 idle: remove mwait_idle() and "idle=mwait" cmdline
param") from the acpi tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the function modified by the former, so
I did that) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]