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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2285 bytes --]

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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 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");
-- 
2.43.0

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2733 bytes --]

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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  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?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Lee Jones]

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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> >  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]

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

[Sean Young]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:09:50AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > ---
> > >  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.

Not any more:

$ git grep pwm_apply_state linux-next/master 
$ 


Sean

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

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Sean Young wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:09:50AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > > 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 <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > > ---
> > > >  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.
> 
> Not any more:
> 
> $ git grep pwm_apply_state linux-next/master 
> $ 

Okay, that's changed since this morning.

I think the easiest solution would be to take Stephen's patch.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

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

[Lee Jones]

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

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

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

[Lee Jones]

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.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

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

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1621 bytes --]

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 #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1552 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 19:34:57 +0100 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> 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

And break it did (since I merge the backlight tree before the pwm
tree), so I used the backlight tree from 20231221.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1772 bytes --]

Hi Lee,

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:27:58 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 19:34:57 +0100 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> 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  
> 
> And break it did (since I merge the backlight tree before the pwm
> tree), so I used the backlight tree from 20231221.

Please remove that merge fix patch from your tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2003 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 11:47:58 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:27:58 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 19:34:57 +0100 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> 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    
> > 
> > And break it did (since I merge the backlight tree before the pwm
> > tree), so I used the backlight tree from 20231221.  
> 
> Please remove that merge fix patch from your tree.

The build of the backlight tree is still failing.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]

[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).

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Sean Young]

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).

Thanks,
Sean

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4029 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:50:28 +0000 Sean Young <sean@mess.org> 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).

Of course linux-next is fine, because I have fixed it up in there.

Here is the problem:  the backlight tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/backlight.git#for-backlight-next)
is broken when built in its own because of the above patch (which is
commit f7baa9ccef93).  In linux-next, I have been merging the previous
working version of the backlight tree (with head commit 7d84a63a39b7).
The patch (commit f7baa9ccef93) can only be applied to the merge of the
backlight tree and the pwm tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git#for-next)
which is merged much later in the linux-next process.  If the backlight
tree was merged by Linus before the pwm tree, it would break his build
(and he would not be happy).  But the patch on the head of the
backlight tree was made unnecessary by commit 9a216587a03d in the pwm
tree.  So, please either revert commit f7baa9ccef93 in the backlight
tree (or simply to a "git reset --hard HEAD^" there).  The patch of
commit f7baa9ccef93 can be applied some time later (after Linus has
merged both trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2024, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:50:28 +0000 Sean Young <sean@mess.org> 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).
> 
> Of course linux-next is fine, because I have fixed it up in there.
> 
> Here is the problem:  the backlight tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/backlight.git#for-backlight-next)
> is broken when built in its own because of the above patch (which is
> commit f7baa9ccef93).  In linux-next, I have been merging the previous
> working version of the backlight tree (with head commit 7d84a63a39b7).
> The patch (commit f7baa9ccef93) can only be applied to the merge of the
> backlight tree and the pwm tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git#for-next)
> which is merged much later in the linux-next process.  If the backlight
> tree was merged by Linus before the pwm tree, it would break his build
> (and he would not be happy).  But the patch on the head of the
> backlight tree was made unnecessary by commit 9a216587a03d in the pwm
> tree.  So, please either revert commit f7baa9ccef93 in the backlight
> tree (or simply to a "git reset --hard HEAD^" there).  The patch of
> commit f7baa9ccef93 can be applied some time later (after Linus has
> merged both trees.

Works for me.

It is done!

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2917 bytes --]

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 #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]

Hi all,

After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:

error[E0277]: the trait bound `core::result::Result<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>: PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not satisfied
   --> drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs:331:10
    |
331 |     ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
    |          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
    |
    = help: the trait `PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not implemented for `Result<Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, Error>`
            but trait `PinInit<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>` is implemented for it
    = help: for that trait implementation, expected `core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>`, found `Th1520PwmPlatformDriver`
note: required by a bound in `kernel::platform::Driver::{synthetic#0}`
   --> rust/kernel/platform.rs:196:15
    |
196 |     ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error>;
    |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `Driver::{synthetic#0}`

error: aborting due to 1 previous error

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`.

Caused by commit

  fb3957af9ec6 ("pwm: Add Rust driver for T-HEAD TH1520 SoC")

presumably interacting with something merged earlier in my tree.
If someone could provide me with an appropriate merge resolution, I will
apply it.

I have used the pwm tree from next-20251024 for today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2766 bytes --]

Hello Stephen,

thanks for your report (and creating next each day!)

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 12:51:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> error[E0277]: the trait bound `core::result::Result<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>: PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not satisfied
>    --> drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs:331:10
>     |
> 331 |     ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
>     |          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
>     |
>     = help: the trait `PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not implemented for `Result<Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, Error>`
>             but trait `PinInit<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>` is implemented for it
>     = help: for that trait implementation, expected `core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>`, found `Th1520PwmPlatformDriver`
> note: required by a bound in `kernel::platform::Driver::{synthetic#0}`
>    --> rust/kernel/platform.rs:196:15
>     |
> 196 |     ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error>;
>     |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `Driver::{synthetic#0}`
> 
> error: aborting due to 1 previous error
> 
> For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`.
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   fb3957af9ec6 ("pwm: Add Rust driver for T-HEAD TH1520 SoC")
> 
> presumably interacting with something merged earlier in my tree.
> If someone could provide me with an appropriate merge resolution, I will
> apply it.

Having no relevant clue about Rust, I bisected that. The bisection points to
0242623384c7 ("rust: driver: let probe() return impl PinInit<Self, Error>").

Translating the changes that commit does to
drivers/gpu/drm/nova/driver.rs for drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs results in:

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
index 0ad38b78be85..dd554574adc8 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ impl platform::Driver for Th1520PwmPlatformDriver {
     fn probe(
         pdev: &platform::Device<Core>,
         _id_info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>,
-    ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
+    ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> {
         let dev = pdev.as_ref();
         let request = pdev.io_request_by_index(0).ok_or(ENODEV)?;
 
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ fn probe(
 
         pwm::Registration::register(dev, chip)?;
 
-        Ok(KBox::new(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, GFP_KERNEL)?.into())
+        Ok(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver)
     }
 }
 
which builds again.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Mon Oct 27, 2025 at 9:11 AM CET, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Translating the changes that commit does to
> drivers/gpu/drm/nova/driver.rs for drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs results in:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> index 0ad38b78be85..dd554574adc8 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ impl platform::Driver for Th1520PwmPlatformDriver {
>      fn probe(
>          pdev: &platform::Device<Core>,
>          _id_info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>,
> -    ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
> +    ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> {
>          let dev = pdev.as_ref();
>          let request = pdev.io_request_by_index(0).ok_or(ENODEV)?;
>  
> @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ fn probe(
>  
>          pwm::Registration::register(dev, chip)?;
>  
> -        Ok(KBox::new(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, GFP_KERNEL)?.into())
> +        Ok(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver)
>      }
>  }

Yes, this looks good.

Thanks,
Danilo

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:38:05 +0100 "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon Oct 27, 2025 at 9:11 AM CET, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Translating the changes that commit does to
> > drivers/gpu/drm/nova/driver.rs for drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs results in:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> > index 0ad38b78be85..dd554574adc8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ impl platform::Driver for Th1520PwmPlatformDriver {
> >      fn probe(
> >          pdev: &platform::Device<Core>,
> >          _id_info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>,
> > -    ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
> > +    ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> {
> >          let dev = pdev.as_ref();
> >          let request = pdev.io_request_by_index(0).ok_or(ENODEV)?;
> >  
> > @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ fn probe(
> >  
> >          pwm::Registration::register(dev, chip)?;
> >  
> > -        Ok(KBox::new(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, GFP_KERNEL)?.into())
> > +        Ok(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver)
> >      }
> >  }  
> 
> Yes, this looks good.

OK, I have applied that to linux-next from today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1449 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 12:51:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:38:05 +0100 "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon Oct 27, 2025 at 9:11 AM CET, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:  
> > > Translating the changes that commit does to
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/nova/driver.rs for drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs results in:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> > > index 0ad38b78be85..dd554574adc8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
> > > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ impl platform::Driver for Th1520PwmPlatformDriver {
> > >      fn probe(
> > >          pdev: &platform::Device<Core>,
> > >          _id_info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>,
> > > -    ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
> > > +    ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> {
> > >          let dev = pdev.as_ref();
> > >          let request = pdev.io_request_by_index(0).ok_or(ENODEV)?;
> > >  
> > > @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ fn probe(
> > >  
> > >          pwm::Registration::register(dev, chip)?;
> > >  
> > > -        Ok(KBox::new(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, GFP_KERNEL)?.into())
> > > +        Ok(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver)
> > >      }
> > >  }    
> > 
> > Yes, this looks good.  
> 
> OK, I have applied that to linux-next from today.

This now needs to be applied to the merge of the modules tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2245 bytes --]

Hello Greg,

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 09:11:35AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 12:51:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> > 
> > error[E0277]: the trait bound `core::result::Result<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>: PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not satisfied
> >    --> drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs:331:10
> >     |
> > 331 |     ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
> >     |          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
> >     |
> >     = help: the trait `PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not implemented for `Result<Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, Error>`
> >             but trait `PinInit<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>` is implemented for it
> >     = help: for that trait implementation, expected `core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>`, found `Th1520PwmPlatformDriver`
> > note: required by a bound in `kernel::platform::Driver::{synthetic#0}`
> >    --> rust/kernel/platform.rs:196:15
> >     |
> > 196 |     ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error>;
> >     |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `Driver::{synthetic#0}`
> > 
> > error: aborting due to 1 previous error
> > 
> > For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`.
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   fb3957af9ec6 ("pwm: Add Rust driver for T-HEAD TH1520 SoC")
> > 
> > presumably interacting with something merged earlier in my tree.
> > If someone could provide me with an appropriate merge resolution, I will
> > apply it.
> 
> Having no relevant clue about Rust, I bisected that. The bisection points to
> 0242623384c7 ("rust: driver: let probe() return impl PinInit<Self, Error>").

To make it easy for Linus to merge my pwm tree during the next merge
window, it would be great if it could contain the conflict resolution.
Can I assume that this commit is stable, will be part of your next MR
and are you ok if I merge it into my tree with the fix for the conflict?

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Mon Oct 27, 2025 at 2:40 PM CET, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> To make it easy for Linus to merge my pwm tree during the next merge
> window, it would be great if it could contain the conflict resolution.
> Can I assume that this commit is stable, will be part of your next MR
> and are you ok if I merge it into my tree with the fix for the conflict?

I think the conflict is trivial enough to resolve, so I don't think Linus would
mind.

Anyways, the commit is stable, so feel free to go ahead. Also note, when I send
the PR (which I will likely do) I usually send a very early PR to Linus, right
before the merge window opens.

- Danilo

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

[Michal Wilczynski]

On 10/27/25 02:51, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> error[E0277]: the trait bound `core::result::Result<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>: PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not satisfied
>    --> drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs:331:10
>     |
> 331 |     ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
>     |          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
>     |
>     = help: the trait `PinInit<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, kernel::error::Error>` is not implemented for `Result<Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, Error>`
>             but trait `PinInit<core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>, kernel::error::Error>` is implemented for it
>     = help: for that trait implementation, expected `core::pin::Pin<Box<Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, Kmalloc>>`, found `Th1520PwmPlatformDriver`
> note: required by a bound in `kernel::platform::Driver::{synthetic#0}`
>    --> rust/kernel/platform.rs:196:15
>     |
> 196 |     ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error>;
>     |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `Driver::{synthetic#0}`
> 
> error: aborting due to 1 previous error
> 
> For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`.
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   fb3957af9ec6 ("pwm: Add Rust driver for T-HEAD TH1520 SoC")
> 
> presumably interacting with something merged earlier in my tree.
> If someone could provide me with an appropriate merge resolution, I will
> apply it.
> 
> I have used the pwm tree from next-20251024 for today.
> 

Hi,
I believe this would fix the problem:
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
index 0ad38b78be85..dd554574adc8 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ impl platform::Driver for Th1520PwmPlatformDriver {
     fn probe(
         pdev: &platform::Device<Core>,
         _id_info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>,
-    ) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
+    ) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> {
         let dev = pdev.as_ref();
         let request = pdev.io_request_by_index(0).ok_or(ENODEV)?;
 
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ fn probe(
 
         pwm::Registration::register(dev, chip)?;
 
-        Ok(KBox::new(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver, GFP_KERNEL)?.into())
+        Ok(Th1520PwmPlatformDriver)
     }
 }
 

This is caused by change in fn probe, caused by this commit [1].

[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251016125544.15559-1-dakr@kernel.org/


Best regards,
-- 
Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@samsung.com>

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

Hi all,

[Reported by "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>]

After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (arm64-allmodconfig)
failed like this:

In file included from drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:15:
drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:292:25: error: 'imx_pwm_dt_ids' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean 'pwm_imx27_dt_ids'?
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_pwm_dt_ids);
                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/module.h:213:15: note: in definition of macro 'MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE'
 extern typeof(name) __mod_##type##__##name##_device_table  \
               ^~~~
include/linux/module.h:213:21: error: '__mod_of__imx_pwm_dt_ids_device_table' aliased to undefined symbol 'imx_pwm_dt_ids'
 extern typeof(name) __mod_##type##__##name##_device_table  \
                     ^~~~~~
drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:292:1: note: in expansion of macro 'MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE'
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_pwm_dt_ids);

Caused by commit

  5a309d380019 ("pwm: imx: Split into two drivers")

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1225 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:17 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> [Reported by "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>]

[Also reported by Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

> 
> After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (arm64-allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> In file included from drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:15:
> drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:292:25: error: 'imx_pwm_dt_ids' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean 'pwm_imx27_dt_ids'?
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_pwm_dt_ids);
>                          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/module.h:213:15: note: in definition of macro 'MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE'
>  extern typeof(name) __mod_##type##__##name##_device_table  \
>                ^~~~
> include/linux/module.h:213:21: error: '__mod_of__imx_pwm_dt_ids_device_table' aliased to undefined symbol 'imx_pwm_dt_ids'
>  extern typeof(name) __mod_##type##__##name##_device_table  \
>                      ^~~~~~
> drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:292:1: note: in expansion of macro 'MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE'
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_pwm_dt_ids);
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   5a309d380019 ("pwm: imx: Split into two drivers")

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello, 

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 05:08:59PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:01:17 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > [Reported by "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>]
> 
> [Also reported by Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

And also reported by the zero-day bot
(201901110232.L51oPCXW%fengguang.wu@intel.com).

> > After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (arm64-allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> > 
> > In file included from drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:15:
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c:292:25: error: 'imx_pwm_dt_ids' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean 'pwm_imx27_dt_ids'?
> >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_pwm_dt_ids);

I already asked Thierry if he can fixup my commit with

	s/imx_pwm_dt_ids/pwm_imx27_dt_ids/

(as already suggested by the compiler), but it seems he didn't act on
that yet.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

Hi Thierry,

After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig)
failed like this:

drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c: In function 'pwm_lpss_config':
drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c:81:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'readl' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  ctrl = readl(lpwm->regs + PWM);
  ^
drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c:87:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'writel' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  writel(ctrl, lpwm->regs + PWM);
  ^

Caused by commit 28160b18787b ("pwm: lpss: Properly split driver to
parts").

I have reverted that commit for today (and 06c7b5394e21 ("pwm: lpss:
pci: Move to use pcim_enable_device()") which depends on it).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

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

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 07:07:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c: In function 'pwm_lpss_config':
> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c:81:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'readl' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   ctrl = readl(lpwm->regs + PWM);
>   ^
> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c:87:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'writel' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   writel(ctrl, lpwm->regs + PWM);
>   ^
> 
> Caused by commit 28160b18787b ("pwm: lpss: Properly split driver to
> parts").
> 
> I have reverted that commit for today (and 06c7b5394e21 ("pwm: lpss:
> pci: Move to use pcim_enable_device()") which depends on it).

Ugh, that's unfortunate. I have a set of scripts I use to build-test
before pushing, but I don't usually do full allyesconfig builds. It
seems like pwm-lpss.c might only be missing a linux/io.h include. It
will likely be Monday before I find the time to properly test and fix
this, do you want me to remove the commits from the pwm/for-next branch
so you don't have to revert it again?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1425 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:06:16AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 07:07:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> > 
> > After merging the pwm tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig)
> > failed like this:
> > 
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c: In function 'pwm_lpss_config':
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c:81:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'readl' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   ctrl = readl(lpwm->regs + PWM);
> >   ^
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c:87:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'writel' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   writel(ctrl, lpwm->regs + PWM);
> >   ^
> > 
> > Caused by commit 28160b18787b ("pwm: lpss: Properly split driver to
> > parts").
> > 
> > I have reverted that commit for today (and 06c7b5394e21 ("pwm: lpss:
> > pci: Move to use pcim_enable_device()") which depends on it).
> 
> Ugh, that's unfortunate. I have a set of scripts I use to build-test
> before pushing, but I don't usually do full allyesconfig builds. It
> seems like pwm-lpss.c might only be missing a linux/io.h include. It
> will likely be Monday before I find the time to properly test and fix
> this, do you want me to remove the commits from the pwm/for-next branch
> so you don't have to revert it again?

Just confirmed that adding a linux/io.h include fixes the build. Will
push a fix in a minute.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

Hi Thierry,

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 00:15:54 +0200 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:06:16AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > 
> > Ugh, that's unfortunate. I have a set of scripts I use to build-test
> > before pushing, but I don't usually do full allyesconfig builds. It
> > seems like pwm-lpss.c might only be missing a linux/io.h include. It
> > will likely be Monday before I find the time to properly test and fix
> > this, do you want me to remove the commits from the pwm/for-next branch
> > so you don't have to revert it again?
> 
> Just confirmed that adding a linux/io.h include fixes the build. Will
> push a fix in a minute.

The revert would have happened automatically, but if it is fixed I will
remove it, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]