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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
