From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

The use of FIELD_MAX() breaks in some configurations because of
a missing header:

drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c:114:12: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_MAX'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  114 |         if (tmp > FIELD_MAX(RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK))
      |                   ^

Fixes: edd549f4956b ("pwm: rcar: Improve register calculation")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
index 19e5d0b849a6..578dbdd2d5a7 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
  * - The hardware cannot generate a 0% duty cycle.
  */
 
+#include <linux/bitfield.h>
 #include <linux/clk.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
-- 
2.39.5

Hello Arnd,

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> The use of FIELD_MAX() breaks in some configurations because of
> a missing header:
> 
> drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c:114:12: error: call to undeclared function 'FIELD_MAX'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>   114 |         if (tmp > FIELD_MAX(RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK))
>       |                   ^
> 
> Fixes: edd549f4956b ("pwm: rcar: Improve register calculation")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

I already fixed that in my pwm/for-next branch. I did exactly what you
did and squashed that in the offending commit.

Thanks for caring
Uwe