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

["Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@amd.com>]

On 7/7/22 4:38 PM, Mukunda,Vijendar wrote:
> On 7/7/22 3:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the sound-asoc tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>> allyesconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> sound/soc/amd/acp-es8336.c: In function 'st_es8336_late_probe':
>> sound/soc/amd/acp-es8336.c:204:33: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct acpi_device'
>>   204 |                 put_device(&adev->dev);
>>       |                                 ^~
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:34:1: error: redefinition of 'snd_soc_acpi_find_machine'
>>    34 | snd_soc_acpi_find_machine(struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *machines)
>>       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:9:
>> include/sound/soc-acpi.h:38:1: note: previous definition of 'snd_soc_acpi_find_machine' with type 'struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *(struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *)'
>>    38 | snd_soc_acpi_find_machine(struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *machines)
>>       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c: In function 'snd_soc_acpi_find_package':
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:58:36: error: implicit declaration of function 'acpi_fetch_acpi_dev'; did you mean 'device_match_acpi_dev'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    58 |         struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle);
>>       |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>       |                                    device_match_acpi_dev
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:58:36: error: initialization of 'struct acpi_device *' from 'int' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Werror=int-conversion]
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:64:25: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct acpi_device'
>>    64 |         if (adev && adev->status.present && adev->status.functional) {
>>       |                         ^~
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:64:49: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct acpi_device'
>>    64 |         if (adev && adev->status.present && adev->status.functional) {
>>       |                                                 ^~
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:80:26: error: implicit declaration of function 'acpi_extract_package' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    80 |                 status = acpi_extract_package(myobj,
>>       |                          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c: At top level:
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:95:6: error: redefinition of 'snd_soc_acpi_find_package_from_hid'
>>    95 | bool snd_soc_acpi_find_package_from_hid(const u8 hid[ACPI_ID_LEN],
>>       |      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:9:
>> include/sound/soc-acpi.h:44:1: note: previous definition of 'snd_soc_acpi_find_package_from_hid' with type 'bool(const u8 *, struct snd_soc_acpi_package_context *)' {aka '_Bool(const unsigned char *, struct snd_soc_acpi_package_context *)'}
>>    44 | snd_soc_acpi_find_package_from_hid(const u8 hid[ACPI_ID_LEN],
>>       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:109:27: error: redefinition of 'snd_soc_acpi_codec_list'
>>   109 | struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *snd_soc_acpi_codec_list(void *arg)
>>       |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from sound/soc/soc-acpi.c:9:
>> include/sound/soc-acpi.h:51:41: note: previous definition of 'snd_soc_acpi_codec_list' with type 'struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *(void *)'
>>    51 | static inline struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *snd_soc_acpi_codec_list(void *arg)
>>       |                                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Caused by commit
>>
>>   f94fa8405801 ("ASoC: amd: enable machine driver build for Jadeite platform")
>>
>> I have reverted that commit for today.
>>
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> We have provided fix for build error and pushed patch for upstream review.
> 
> Patch title: " ASoC: amd: fix ACPI dependency compile errors and warnings"
> patch link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220706205515.2485601-1-Vijendar.Mukunda@amd.com/
> 
> We will resend the fix for upstream review.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vijendar

Hi Mark,


If we have to submit the patch freshly then earlier patch should be
reverted in for-next branch.
Should we resend the fix again or else should we submit patch freshly?

Thanks,
Vijendar