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

From: Thomas Renninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:15:37 -0600

On Wednesday 11 November 2009 08:45:24 pm Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq tree got a conflict in
> include/acpi/processor.h between commit
> d81c45e1c9369855901420f79114852eba2ea16a ("ACPI: Notify the _PPC
> evaluation status to the platform") from the acpi tree and commit
> b02d803d0fa3a395ba32bc5e5e3e7a3385ca7237 ("[CPUFREQ] Introduce bios_limit
> per cpu cpufreq sysfs interface") from the cpufreq tree.
First, thanks everybody for picking this up.

> Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.
>
> By the way, Dave, Thomas, shouldn't the second version of
> acpi_processor_get_bios_limit() in include/acpi/processor.h introduced by
> the above cpufreq tree patch be "static inline"?
Yes, good catch.
Shall I send an on top fix somewhere?

   Thomas

@@ -295,6 +295,7 @@ static inline void acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter(struct acpi_processor_cx
 void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void);
 void acpi_processor_ppc_exit(void);
 int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr);
+extern int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit);
 #else
 static inline void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void)
 {
@@ -316,6 +317,11 @@ static inline int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr)
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
+int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit)
+{
+	return -ENODEV;
+}
+
 #endif				/* CONFIG_CPU_FREQ */