On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 03:12:36PM +0530, Mohammad Rafi Shaik wrote:

> +static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget tx_macro_dapm_widgets_v15[] = {
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC0 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec0_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC1 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec1_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC2 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec2_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC3 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec3_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC4 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec4_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC5 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec5_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC6 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec6_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC7 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec7_mux_v9_3),

There are existing widgets of these names in the base widgets that are
unconditionally registered so these should collide and get an -EBUSY
during registration.  If you need something different for the newer
devices you should move the base copy out of the shared table.