Re: [PATCH 4/6] mux: add missing mux_state_get

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 2022-01-03 13:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 11:38:36PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> >>
> >> And implement devm_mux_state_get in terms of the new function.
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@ti.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mux/core.c           | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >>  include/linux/mux/consumer.h |  1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mux/core.c b/drivers/mux/core.c
> >> index 7d38e7c0c02e..90073ce01539 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mux/core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mux/core.c
> >> @@ -673,6 +673,33 @@ struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
> >>  }
> >>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_mux_control_get);
> >>  
> >> +/**
> >> + * mux_state_get() - Get the mux-state for a device.
> >> + * @dev: The device that needs a mux-state.
> >> + * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-state.
> >> + *
> >> + * Return: A pointer to the mux-state, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
> >> + */
> >> +struct mux_state *mux_state_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct mux_state *mstate;
> >> +
> >> +	mstate = kzalloc(sizeof(*mstate), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!mstate)
> >> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> +
> >> +	mstate->mux = mux_get(dev, mux_name, &mstate->state);
> > 
> > will this build?  I haven't applied it but mux_get() in my tree right
> > now is defined as:
> > 	static inline void mux_get(struct gsm_mux *gsm)
> 
> Yes it builds. As mentioned in the cover letter, the patches have been
> in -next for a couple of weeks. The static definition you are pointing
> at is from n_gsm.c (which does not seem to be #included by any other
> file). This definition of mux_get is again static and in a .c file
> (which is not #included by anything). Surely not a conflict?

If it's static, no, it's fine, but I don't see it in this commit either?

I'm confused now, can you resend the remaining changes and I will review
them again?

thanks,

greg k-h