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

From: Thierry Reding <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 19:34:57 +0100

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:58:01PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:58:05 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 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
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!
> > 
> > [1/1] linux-next: build failure after merge of the pwm tree
> >       commit: f7baa9ccef93ba1c36a8ecf58c2f4e86fb3181b9
> 
> Actually it's:
> 
>   f7baa9ccef93b ("backlight: mp3309c: Rename  pwm_apply_state() to pwm_apply_might_sleep()")
> 
> But don't bank on the commit ID staying the same.

This is likely going to break the build on your branch because
pwm_apply_might_sleep() is only available in the PWM tree right now. In
any case, I've now pushed a commit that adds pwm_apply_state() back as a
compatibility stub, so it should be okay for you to drop this if you
run into problems. It's always possible that somebody else wants to add
a new caller of pwm_apply_state() and in retrospect we should've
probably done this from the start, at least as a transitional measure
for one or two cycles.

Thierry