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

2013-02-16 Thread Zheng, Lv
> Hi Len, > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:06 -0500 Len Brown wrote: > > > > 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. > > OK, I have re

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

2013-02-12 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Len, On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:06 -0500 Len Brown wrote: > > 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. OK, I have renamed your tree to

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

2013-02-11 Thread Len Brown
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

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

2013-02-10 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Len, Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/process.c between commit 43720bd60143 ("PM / tracing: remove deprecated power trace API") from the pm tree and commit 69fb3676df33 ("x86 idle: remove mwait_idle() and "idle=mwait" cmdline param") from the acpi tree

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

2013-02-10 Thread Stephen Rothwell
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