From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree with the pm tree Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:06 -0500 Message-ID: <51197FEE.9070606@kernel.org> References: <20130211125856.64b216a03dd18218c4627635@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:54942 "EHLO mail-vb0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760203Ab3BKXeJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130211125856.64b216a03dd18218c4627635@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lv Zheng , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Daniel Lezcano 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