On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 12:50:28PM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:02:41PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > [also add Jingoo (additional backlight maintainer) and Linus]
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:34:57PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Lee and Thierry,
> >
> > I know that we're still on New Year vibes, so some things are not up to full
> > steam for now; but since we're close to v6.7 release and v6.8 merge window,
> > hence allow me to ask:
> >
> > Stephen Rothwell is still complaining about backlight tree build failure
> > due to f7baa9ccef93b, yet it has not been fixed so far. Has the culprit
> > been dropped/reverted as he requested? The worst case is the culprit slips
> > through and become part of backlight PR and Linus will likely not happy
> > with the build regression (maybe he had to fix by himself).
>
> This should be fixed by 9a216587a03df, and on current linux-next I can't
> reproduce the problem any more (x86_64 allmodconfig).
OK, thanks!
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
