2009-11-12 02:45:23

by Stephen Rothwell

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

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.

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"?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

diff --cc include/acpi/processor.h
index a920237,e7454b3..0000000
--- a/include/acpi/processor.h
+++ b/include/acpi/processor.h
@@@ -294,7 -294,8 +294,8 @@@ static inline void acpi_processor_ffh_c
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void);
void acpi_processor_ppc_exit(void);
-int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr);
+int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr, int event_flag);
+ extern int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit);
#else
static inline void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void)
{

2009-11-12 12:15:45

by Thomas Renninger

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

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 */

2009-11-12 17:14:26

by Dave Jones

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

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:15:37AM -0600, Thomas Renninger wrote:

> > 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.

np, apologies for the delay.

> > 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?

Yeah, an incremental will be fine. I'll fold it into the original.

thanks,

Dave