Hi all,

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

  drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c

between commit:

  395b8b5c8f67 ("cpufreq: ACPI: Don't enable boost on policy exit")

from the pm tree and commit:

  78255eb23973 ("x86/msr: Rename 'wrmsrl()' to 'wrmsrq()'")

from the tip 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/acpi-cpufreq.c
index 85b5a88f723f,8bc08f3b0d5d..000000000000
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@@ -108,17 -107,25 +108,17 @@@ static void boost_set_msr_each(void *p_
  		msr_mask = MSR_K7_HWCR_CPB_DIS;
  		break;
  	default:
 -		return -EINVAL;
 +		return;
  	}
  
- 	rdmsrl(msr_addr, val);
+ 	rdmsrq(msr_addr, val);
  
  	if (enable)
  		val &= ~msr_mask;
  	else
  		val |= msr_mask;
  
- 	wrmsrl(msr_addr, val);
+ 	wrmsrq(msr_addr, val);
 -	return 0;
 -}
 -
 -static void boost_set_msr_each(void *p_en)
 -{
 -	bool enable = (bool) p_en;
 -
 -	boost_set_msr(enable);
  }
  
  static int set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int val)

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   395b8b5c8f67 ("cpufreq: ACPI: Don't enable boost on policy exit")
> 
> from the pm tree and commit:
> 
>   78255eb23973 ("x86/msr: Rename 'wrmsrl()' to 'wrmsrq()'")
> 
> from the tip 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.

LGTM, thank you Stephen!

	Ingo