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

From: Len Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:06 -0500

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