Hi all,

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:13:45 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/power/pci.rst
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   b64cf7a1711d ("PCI/PM: Wrap long lines in documentation")
>   89cdbc354635 ("PCI/PM: Remove unused pci_driver.resume_early() hook")
>   1a1daf097e21 ("PCI/PM: Remove unused pci_driver.suspend_late() hook")
> 
> from the pci tree and commit:
> 
>   1992b66d2f55 ("PM: Wrap documentation to fit in 80 columns")
> 
> from the pm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc Documentation/power/pci.rst
> index 0924d29636ad,51e0a493d284..000000000000
> --- a/Documentation/power/pci.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/power/pci.rst
> @@@ -692,11 -692,11 +692,11 @@@ controlling the runtime power managemen
>   At the time of this writing there are two ways to define power management
>   callbacks for a PCI device driver, the recommended one, based on using a
>   dev_pm_ops structure described in Documentation/driver-api/pm/devices.rst, and
> - the "legacy" one, in which the .suspend() and .resume() callbacks from struct
> - pci_driver are used.  The legacy approach, however, doesn't allow one to define
> - runtime power management callbacks and is not really suitable for any new
> - drivers.  Therefore it is not covered by this document (refer to the source code
> - to learn more about it).
>  -the "legacy" one, in which the .suspend(), .suspend_late(), .resume_early(), and
>  -.resume() callbacks from struct pci_driver are used.  The legacy approach,
>  -however, doesn't allow one to define runtime power management callbacks and is
>  -not really suitable for any new drivers.  Therefore it is not covered by this
>  -document (refer to the source code to learn more about it).
> ++the "legacy" one, in which the .suspend() and .resume() callbacks from
> ++struct pci_driver are used.  The legacy approach, however, doesn't allow
> ++one to define runtime power management callbacks and is not really suitable
> ++for any new drivers.  Therefore it is not covered by this document (refer
> ++to the source code to learn more about it).
>   
>   It is recommended that all PCI device drivers define a struct dev_pm_ops object
>   containing pointers to power management (PM) callbacks that will be executed by

This is now a conflict between the pci tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell