On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 05:48:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:52:06PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:45:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:11 PM Uwe Kleine-König > > > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > The intel pinctrl driver can provide a PWM device and for that needs to > > > > call the function devm_pwm_lpss_probe(). That function is provided by > > > > the pwm-lpss driver which intends to export it in the "PWM_LPSS" > > > > namespace. To prepare fixing the pwm-lpss driver to indeed use the > > > > "PWM_LPSS" namespace, import that namespace when used. > > ... > > > > > +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PWM_LPSS) > > > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > Why? > > > > Because devm_pwm_lpss_probe() is only used #if > > IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PWM_LPSS). Without the #if but with > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250123110951.370759-2-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > this results in a warning (with W=1) :-) > > There is no such commit in the current Linux Next, so let's solve the issues > when they come up. > > I'm okay to take your series via Intel pin control without that ifdeffery. > If you don't agree on the change, we need to find the way how to avoid ugly > ifdeffery from day 1. I'm ok with dropping the #if. Should I resend or do you want to edit the patch? Would you take both patches then? Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
