Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq-arm tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c

between commit:

  0813fd2e14ca ("cpufreq: prevent NULL dereference in cpufreq_online()")

from the pm tree and commit:

  60208a700f76 ("cpufreq: Restrict enabling boost on policies with no boost frequencies")

from the cpufreq-arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 30ffbddc7ece,3bb5cef263da..000000000000
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@@ -1571,7 -1590,7 +1590,7 @@@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int 
  		policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
  
  	/* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */
- 	if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost &&
 -	if (policy->boost_supported &&
++	if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost && policy->boost_supported &&
  	    policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
  		policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled();
  		ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled);

On 06-02-25, 11:50, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq-arm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0813fd2e14ca ("cpufreq: prevent NULL dereference in cpufreq_online()")
> 
> from the pm tree and commit:
> 
>   60208a700f76 ("cpufreq: Restrict enabling boost on policies with no boost frequencies")
> 
> from the cpufreq-arm tree.

Fixed now.

-- 
viresh