Hi,

On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:15:32PM -0500, Chris Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 03:50:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the battery tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > /tmp/next/build/drivers/power/supply/sgm41542_charger.c:209:12: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_PREP'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >   209 |         reg_val = FIELD_PREP(SGM4154X_PRECHRG_CUR_MASK, reg_val);
> >       |                   ^
> > /tmp/next/build/drivers/power/supply/sgm41542_charger.c:249:8: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_GET'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >   249 |         val = FIELD_GET(SGM4154X_ICHRG_CUR_MASK, reg);
> >       |               ^
> > /tmp/next/build/drivers/power/supply/sgm41542_charger.c:271:12: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_PREP'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >   271 |         reg_val = FIELD_PREP(SGM4154X_VREG_V_MASK, reg_val);
> >       |                   ^
> > /tmp/next/build/drivers/power/supply/sgm41542_charger.c:293:8: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_GET'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >   293 |         val = FIELD_GET(SGM4154X_VREG_V_MASK, reg);
> >       |               ^
> > /tmp/next/build/drivers/power/supply/sgm41542_charger.c:452:9: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_PREP'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >   452 |         time = FIELD_PREP(SGM4154X_WDT_TIMER_MASK, time);
> >       |                ^
> > 5 errors generated.
> > 
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >    ac55d04627d41 (power: supply: sgm41542: Add SG Micro sgm41542 charger)
> > 
> > I have used the version from next-20260720 instead.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't aware this was getting pulled for Linux next or I
> would have noted that in the last revision I just sent.

mh, looks like b4 ty did not generate a response to you.

> I suspect I'm just missing a header here, which I am also missing
> in V8 just submitted. I'll add an include for linux/bitfield.h in
> revision 9 which I'll send just as soon in the next day or two
> once I can get a code review from a human and from the sashiko.dev
> code bot.

I will drop the driver for now and wait for a v9.

Greetings,

-- Sebastian