Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the pwm tree

From: Lee Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 10:09:50 +0000

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Thierry Reding wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 04:58:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the backlight tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c: In function 'mp3309c_bl_update_status':
> > drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c:134:23: error: implicit declaration of function 'pwm_apply_state'; did you mean 'pwm_apply_args'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   134 |                 ret = pwm_apply_state(chip->pwmd, &pwmstate);
> >       |                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >       |                       pwm_apply_args
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   c748a6d77c06 ("pwm: Rename pwm_apply_state() to pwm_apply_might_sleep()")
> > 
> > interacting with commit
> > 
> >   2e914516a58c ("backlight: mp3309c: Add support for MPS MP3309C")
> > 
> > from the backlight tree.
> > 
> > I have appplied the following merge fix patch.
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:13:37 +1100
> > Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "backlight: mp3309c: Add support for MPS MP3309C"
> > 
> > from the backlight tree interacting with commit
> > 
> >   c748a6d77c06 ("pwm: Rename pwm_apply_state() to pwm_apply_might_sleep()")
> > 
> > from the pwm tree.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >  drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c b/drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c
> > index 34d71259fac1..b0d9aef6942b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/mp3309c.c
> > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int mp3309c_bl_update_status(struct backlight_device *bl)
> >  					    chip->pdata->levels[brightness],
> >  					    chip->pdata->levels[chip->pdata->max_brightness]);
> >  		pwmstate.enabled = true;
> > -		ret = pwm_apply_state(chip->pwmd, &pwmstate);
> > +		ret = pwm_apply_might_sleep(chip->pwmd, &pwmstate);
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			return ret;
> >  
> > @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ static int mp3309c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  					    chip->pdata->default_brightness,
> >  					    chip->pdata->max_brightness);
> >  		pwmstate.enabled = true;
> > -		ret = pwm_apply_state(chip->pwmd, &pwmstate);
> > +		ret = pwm_apply_might_sleep(chip->pwmd, &pwmstate);
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, ret,
> >  					     "error setting pwm device\n");
> 
> Hi Lee,
> 
> We could exchange stable tags to make this work, but given that people
> (myself included) are getting into holiday mode I'm inclined to just add
> a pwm_apply_state() compatibility inline for now and then we can address
> this in the new year or for the next cycle. What do you think?

Sorry, why is this happening?

I still see support for pwm_apply_state() in -next.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]