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 */
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
