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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2517 bytes --]

Hi all,

After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm multi_v7_defconfig)
failed like this:

drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'regulator_set_optimum_mode' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
    regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
    ^

Caused by commit a689554ba6ed ("drm/msm: Initial add DSI connector
support") from the drm tree interacting with commit ae6e808f1574
("regulator: Drop temporary regulator_set_optimum_mode wrapper") from
the regulator tree.

This happens every time someone renames/changes an API :-(

I have applied the following merge fix patch.  Someone needs to make
sure Linus finds out when the latter of these two trees is merged into
his.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:28:42 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] drm/msm: fixes for regulator_set_optimum_mode name change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
index fdc54e3eff55..962cf545d24c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
@@ -327,8 +327,7 @@ static void dsi_host_regulator_disable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
 	DBG("");
 	for (i = num - 1; i >= 0; i--)
 		if (regs[i].disable_load >= 0)
-			regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
-						regs[i].disable_load);
+			regulator_set_load(s[i].consumer, regs[i].disable_load);
 
 	regulator_bulk_disable(num, s);
 }
@@ -343,8 +342,8 @@ static int dsi_host_regulator_enable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
 	DBG("");
 	for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
 		if (regs[i].enable_load >= 0) {
-			ret = regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
-							regs[i].enable_load);
+			ret = regulator_set_load(s[i].consumer,
+						regs[i].enable_load);
 			if (ret < 0) {
 				pr_err("regulator %d set op mode failed, %d\n",
 					i, ret);
@@ -363,7 +362,7 @@ static int dsi_host_regulator_enable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
 
 fail:
 	for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
-		regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer, regs[i].disable_load);
+		regulator_set_load(s[i].consumer, regs[i].disable_load);
 	return ret;
 }
 
-- 
2.1.4

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

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

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

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1032 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm multi_v7_defconfig)
> failed like this:

> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'regulator_set_optimum_mode' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>     regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
>     ^

> Caused by commit a689554ba6ed ("drm/msm: Initial add DSI connector
> support") from the drm tree interacting with commit ae6e808f1574
> ("regulator: Drop temporary regulator_set_optimum_mode wrapper") from
> the regulator tree.

> This happens every time someone renames/changes an API :-(

It's *really* questionable if anyone should be using that API in the
first place, one of the reasons it's being removed is that it's really
unclear that anything would be able to successfully use it as-is.  The
easist thing might be to drop the new usage for the time being.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

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

[Rob Clark]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm multi_v7_defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'regulator_set_optimum_mode' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>     regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
>     ^
>
> Caused by commit a689554ba6ed ("drm/msm: Initial add DSI connector
> support") from the drm tree interacting with commit ae6e808f1574
> ("regulator: Drop temporary regulator_set_optimum_mode wrapper") from
> the regulator tree.

Thanks.. btw, would it be possible to get my msm-next branch picked up
by linux-next?  That seems like it would help to catch these earlier..

 git://people.freedesktop.org/~robclark/linux msm-next

BR,
-R

> This happens every time someone renames/changes an API :-(
>
> I have applied the following merge fix patch.  Someone needs to make
> sure Linus finds out when the latter of these two trees is merged into
> his.
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:28:42 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] drm/msm: fixes for regulator_set_optimum_mode name change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
> index fdc54e3eff55..962cf545d24c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
> @@ -327,8 +327,7 @@ static void dsi_host_regulator_disable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
>         DBG("");
>         for (i = num - 1; i >= 0; i--)
>                 if (regs[i].disable_load >= 0)
> -                       regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
> -                                               regs[i].disable_load);
> +                       regulator_set_load(s[i].consumer, regs[i].disable_load);
>
>         regulator_bulk_disable(num, s);
>  }
> @@ -343,8 +342,8 @@ static int dsi_host_regulator_enable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
>         DBG("");
>         for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
>                 if (regs[i].enable_load >= 0) {
> -                       ret = regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
> -                                                       regs[i].enable_load);
> +                       ret = regulator_set_load(s[i].consumer,
> +                                               regs[i].enable_load);
>                         if (ret < 0) {
>                                 pr_err("regulator %d set op mode failed, %d\n",
>                                         i, ret);
> @@ -363,7 +362,7 @@ static int dsi_host_regulator_enable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
>
>  fail:
>         for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
> -               regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer, regs[i].disable_load);
> +               regulator_set_load(s[i].consumer, regs[i].disable_load);
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> --
> 2.1.4
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

drm-msm tree (Was: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the regulator tree)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1183 bytes --]

Hi Rob,

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:00:44 -0400 Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks.. btw, would it be possible to get my msm-next branch picked up
> by linux-next?  That seems like it would help to catch these earlier..
> 
>  git://people.freedesktop.org/~robclark/linux msm-next

Added from today.

Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next.  As
you may know, this is not a judgment of your code.  The purpose of
linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. 

You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
     * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
        Signed-off-by,
     * posted to the relevant mailing list,
     * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
     * successfully unit tested, and 
     * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

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

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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1471 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:35:56 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm multi_v7_defconfig)
> > failed like this:
> 
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'regulator_set_optimum_mode' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >     regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
> >     ^
> 
> > Caused by commit a689554ba6ed ("drm/msm: Initial add DSI connector
> > support") from the drm tree interacting with commit ae6e808f1574
> > ("regulator: Drop temporary regulator_set_optimum_mode wrapper") from
> > the regulator tree.
> 
> > This happens every time someone renames/changes an API :-(
> 
> It's *really* questionable if anyone should be using that API in the
> first place, one of the reasons it's being removed is that it's really
> unclear that anything would be able to successfully use it as-is.  The
> easist thing might be to drop the new usage for the time being.

This fix up patch is now needed when the drm tree is merged with Linus'
tree (the regulator part has been merged).

Mark, what did you above response mean?  Should the drm tree be using
something different?

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

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

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

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Mon 13 Apr 16:44 PDT 2015, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:35:56 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > > After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm multi_v7_defconfig)
> > > failed like this:
> > 
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'regulator_set_optimum_mode' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >     regulator_set_optimum_mode(s[i].consumer,
> > >     ^
> > 
> > > Caused by commit a689554ba6ed ("drm/msm: Initial add DSI connector
> > > support") from the drm tree interacting with commit ae6e808f1574
> > > ("regulator: Drop temporary regulator_set_optimum_mode wrapper") from
> > > the regulator tree.
> > 
> > > This happens every time someone renames/changes an API :-(
> > 
> > It's *really* questionable if anyone should be using that API in the
> > first place, one of the reasons it's being removed is that it's really
> > unclear that anything would be able to successfully use it as-is.  The
> > easist thing might be to drop the new usage for the time being.
> 
> This fix up patch is now needed when the drm tree is merged with Linus'
> tree (the regulator part has been merged).
> 
> Mark, what did you above response mean?  Should the drm tree be using
> something different?
> 

What Mark mean is basically that there shouldn't be any users of
regulator_set_optimum_mode() for various reasons and we introduced
regulator_set_load() to solve these, before any users popped up.

Unfortunately we weren't fast enough and people got some code in that
uses the API that isn't implemented for any Qualcomm platform today...


Your patch looks correct and should preferrably be added to the drm
tree, or the last patch in my series that drops the API wrapper should
be held back until rc1(?)

Regards,
Bjorn

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 802 bytes --]

Hi Bjorn,

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:07:06 -0700 Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
>
> What Mark mean is basically that there shouldn't be any users of
> regulator_set_optimum_mode() for various reasons and we introduced
> regulator_set_load() to solve these, before any users popped up.
> 
> Unfortunately we weren't fast enough and people got some code in that
> uses the API that isn't implemented for any Qualcomm platform today...

Ah, OK.

> Your patch looks correct and should preferrably be added to the drm
> tree, or the last patch in my series that drops the API wrapper should
> be held back until rc1(?)

It needs to be sent to Linus as a merge fix when the drm tree is merged.

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

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

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

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:41AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:07:06 -0700 Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> wrote:

> > Your patch looks correct and should preferrably be added to the drm
> > tree, or the last patch in my series that drops the API wrapper should
> > be held back until rc1(?)

> It needs to be sent to Linus as a merge fix when the drm tree is merged.

Or the DRM tree could pull my tree I guess - Rob/David, I can make a tag
specifically for this branch if you like?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

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

[Dave Airlie]

On 14 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:41AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:07:06 -0700 Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
>
>> > Your patch looks correct and should preferrably be added to the drm
>> > tree, or the last patch in my series that drops the API wrapper should
>> > be held back until rc1(?)
>
>> It needs to be sent to Linus as a merge fix when the drm tree is merged.
>
> Or the DRM tree could pull my tree I guess - Rob/David, I can make a tag
> specifically for this branch if you like?

I can just backmerge Linus's tree before I send it to him, and stick
this patch on top.

seems like the best answer.

Dave.