[alsa-devel] [PATCH] SoC: Fix MAX98357A codec driver dependencies
The max98357a driver depends on GPIOLIB. This may cause the following build failure.
sound/soc/codecs/max98357a.c: In function 'max98357a_daiops_trigger': sound/soc/codecs/max98357a.c:30:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'gpiod_set_value' sound/soc/codecs/max98357a.c: In function 'max98357a_codec_probe': sound/soc/codecs/max98357a.c:55:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'devm_gpiod_get' sound/soc/codecs/max98357a.c:61:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'gpiod_direction_output'
Seen with mips:allmodconfig as well as various randconfig builds.
Fixes: af5adf129369 ("ASoC: max98357a: Add MAX98357A codec driver") Cc: Kenneth Westfield kwestfie@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck linux@roeck-us.net --- sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig b/sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig index 064e6c1..ea9f0e3 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ config SND_SOC_ALL_CODECS select SND_SOC_MAX98088 if I2C select SND_SOC_MAX98090 if I2C select SND_SOC_MAX98095 if I2C - select SND_SOC_MAX98357A + select SND_SOC_MAX98357A if GPIOLIB select SND_SOC_MAX9850 if I2C select SND_SOC_MAX9768 if I2C select SND_SOC_MAX9877 if I2C
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
The max98357a driver depends on GPIOLIB. This may cause the following build failure.
Applied, thanks. Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsystem.
On 02/11/2015 06:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
The max98357a driver depends on GPIOLIB. This may cause the following build failure.
Applied, thanks. Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsystem.
Hi Mark,
I notice that the problem this patch is trying to fix is still seen in the upstream kernel. Did the patch get lost after all, or is it still in the queue ?
Thanks, Guenter
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 06:05:45AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
I notice that the problem this patch is trying to fix is still seen in the upstream kernel. Did the patch get lost after all, or is it still in the queue ?
My git tree is public...
participants (2)
-
Guenter Roeck
-
Mark Brown