| Message ID | 1360151235-11980-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:47:14PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > If uart driver is probed defer, console_setup will be called later > after __init && __initdata sections destroyed. And amba_console isn't > defined in __init or __initdata section. So we needn't define > pl011_console_setup() && pl011_console_get_options() in __init section. It sounds like there's a deeper problem here - if this driver being deferred, why isn't it being retried after the pinctrl stuff gets its driver registered? We've had bugs in this deferred probing before, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more... and we should not be "fixing" drivers because of bugs elsewhere.
On 6 February 2013 19:52, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:47:14PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: >> If uart driver is probed defer, console_setup will be called later >> after __init && __initdata sections destroyed. And amba_console isn't >> defined in __init or __initdata section. So we needn't define >> pl011_console_setup() && pl011_console_get_options() in __init section. > > It sounds like there's a deeper problem here - if this driver being > deferred, why isn't it being retried after the pinctrl stuff gets > its driver registered? > > We've had bugs in this deferred probing before, I wouldn't be surprised > if there's more... and we should not be "fixing" drivers because of bugs > elsewhere. It retried if driver is being deferred. But those console setup functions are released since they're declared in __init section. rest_init() --> creates kernel_init thread that could free __init section memory deferred_probe_initicall() creates a workqueue that is used to retry deferred probe function. I think that these two threads are competing. Best Regards Haojian
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote: CC Grant on this issue... > On 6 February 2013 19:52, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:47:14PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: >>> If uart driver is probed defer, console_setup will be called later >>> after __init && __initdata sections destroyed. And amba_console isn't >>> defined in __init or __initdata section. So we needn't define >>> pl011_console_setup() && pl011_console_get_options() in __init section. >> >> It sounds like there's a deeper problem here - if this driver being >> deferred, why isn't it being retried after the pinctrl stuff gets >> its driver registered? >> >> We've had bugs in this deferred probing before, I wouldn't be surprised >> if there's more... and we should not be "fixing" drivers because of bugs >> elsewhere. > > It retried if driver is being deferred. But those console setup > functions are released > since they're declared in __init section. > > rest_init() > --> creates kernel_init thread that could free __init section memory > > deferred_probe_initicall() creates a workqueue that is used to retry > deferred probe > function. > > I think that these two threads are competing. Now that is the *real* problem. The __init sections surely should not be discarded until *after* all deferred probes are complete and the deferral workqueue terminates. How about writing a patch to fix that instead? (If possible...) Yours, Linus Walleij
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:31:24PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Haojian Zhuang > <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote: > > CC Grant on this issue... > > > On 6 February 2013 19:52, Russell King - ARM Linux > > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:47:14PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > >>> If uart driver is probed defer, console_setup will be called later > >>> after __init && __initdata sections destroyed. And amba_console isn't > >>> defined in __init or __initdata section. So we needn't define > >>> pl011_console_setup() && pl011_console_get_options() in __init section. > >> > >> It sounds like there's a deeper problem here - if this driver being > >> deferred, why isn't it being retried after the pinctrl stuff gets > >> its driver registered? > >> > >> We've had bugs in this deferred probing before, I wouldn't be surprised > >> if there's more... and we should not be "fixing" drivers because of bugs > >> elsewhere. > > > > It retried if driver is being deferred. But those console setup > > functions are released > > since they're declared in __init section. > > > > rest_init() > > --> creates kernel_init thread that could free __init section memory > > > > deferred_probe_initicall() creates a workqueue that is used to retry > > deferred probe > > function. > > > > I think that these two threads are competing. > > Now that is the *real* problem. The __init sections surely should > not be discarded until *after* all deferred probes are complete > and the deferral workqueue terminates. > > How about writing a patch to fix that instead? (If possible...) Well, we have the facilities to flush workqueues, so it should be possible. However, I'm just wondering if this shows that we _do_ need to get rid of a pile of __init marked functions as well as fixing this, thanks to the deferred probing we now have (maybe the whole __init thing becomes useless with deferred probing?) There's nothing really to guarantee that the pinctrl stuff will be available by the time the init sections are discarded (it could be in a loadable module?) or indeed any other resources that might be necessary. I think in this regard, deferred probing has opened a similar can of worms which hotplug devices created (which eventually ended up with killing the __dev* marking).
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > However, I'm just wondering if this shows that we _do_ need to get rid > of a pile of __init marked functions as well as fixing this, thanks to > the deferred probing we now have (maybe the whole __init thing becomes > useless with deferred probing?) And all __initdata and __initconst as well. > There's nothing really to guarantee > that the pinctrl stuff will be available by the time the init sections > are discarded (it could be in a loadable module?) or indeed any other > resources that might be necessary. I don't dare to guess how deferred probing is supposed to work with loadable modules. When I start to think of it my mind boggles. But I think maybe all drivers that support module loading are tagging things wrong. Shouldn't they all be using __init_or_module, __initdata_or_module, __initconst_or_module so they only get discarded unless compiled as modules? As far as I can tell from <linux/init.h> that is the intention. Talk about can of worms :-( > I think in this regard, deferred probing has opened a similar can of > worms which hotplug devices created (which eventually ended up with > killing the __dev* marking). I'm afraid you're right. Pinctrl core grabbing of pins seems to trigger the problem more often on platforms that are using it. Yours, Linus Walleij
On 7 February 2013 00:38, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:31:24PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Haojian Zhuang >> <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> CC Grant on this issue... >> >> > On 6 February 2013 19:52, Russell King - ARM Linux >> > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:47:14PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: >> >>> If uart driver is probed defer, console_setup will be called later >> >>> after __init && __initdata sections destroyed. And amba_console isn't >> >>> defined in __init or __initdata section. So we needn't define >> >>> pl011_console_setup() && pl011_console_get_options() in __init section. >> >> >> >> It sounds like there's a deeper problem here - if this driver being >> >> deferred, why isn't it being retried after the pinctrl stuff gets >> >> its driver registered? >> >> >> >> We've had bugs in this deferred probing before, I wouldn't be surprised >> >> if there's more... and we should not be "fixing" drivers because of bugs >> >> elsewhere. >> > >> > It retried if driver is being deferred. But those console setup >> > functions are released >> > since they're declared in __init section. >> > >> > rest_init() >> > --> creates kernel_init thread that could free __init section memory >> > >> > deferred_probe_initicall() creates a workqueue that is used to retry >> > deferred probe >> > function. >> > >> > I think that these two threads are competing. >> >> Now that is the *real* problem. The __init sections surely should >> not be discarded until *after* all deferred probes are complete >> and the deferral workqueue terminates. >> >> How about writing a patch to fix that instead? (If possible...) > > Well, we have the facilities to flush workqueues, so it should be possible. > > However, I'm just wondering if this shows that we _do_ need to get rid > of a pile of __init marked functions as well as fixing this, thanks to > the deferred probing we now have (maybe the whole __init thing becomes > useless with deferred probing?) There's nothing really to guarantee > that the pinctrl stuff will be available by the time the init sections > are discarded (it could be in a loadable module?) or indeed any other > resources that might be necessary. > > I think in this regard, deferred probing has opened a similar can of > worms which hotplug devices created (which eventually ended up with > killing the __dev* marking). At first, I considered to remove those __init functions. But it may seem unreasonable. Now I'm trying to reuse wait_for_device_probe() after do_initcalls(). Please help to review. Thanks Haojian
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 February 2013 00:38, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:31:24PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Haojian Zhuang >>> <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> CC Grant on this issue... >>> >>> > On 6 February 2013 19:52, Russell King - ARM Linux >>> > rest_init() >>> > --> creates kernel_init thread that could free __init section memory >>> > >>> > deferred_probe_initicall() creates a workqueue that is used to retry >>> > deferred probe >>> > function. >>> > >>> > I think that these two threads are competing. >>> >>> Now that is the *real* problem. The __init sections surely should >>> not be discarded until *after* all deferred probes are complete >>> and the deferral workqueue terminates. >>> >>> How about writing a patch to fix that instead? (If possible...) That just masks the issue. See below. >> >> Well, we have the facilities to flush workqueues, so it should be possible. >> >> However, I'm just wondering if this shows that we _do_ need to get rid >> of a pile of __init marked functions as well as fixing this, thanks to >> the deferred probing we now have (maybe the whole __init thing becomes >> useless with deferred probing?) There's nothing really to guarantee >> that the pinctrl stuff will be available by the time the init sections >> are discarded (it could be in a loadable module?) or indeed any other >> resources that might be necessary. If it is a probe function, then yes the __init annotations need to be removed or the driver needs to use platform_driver_probe(). This has been the model as long as I can remember. As long as a driver has a .probe hook, the driver core can call it at any time. Deferred probe has only exposed the issue. If you want to discard the .probe() hook, then the probe() pointer needs to be cleared from the driver structure before discarding the sections. Otherwise the driver core can still call it which is what happens in deferred probe and can happen if a device gets unbound from a driver and then re-attached. >> I think in this regard, deferred probing has opened a similar can of >> worms which hotplug devices created (which eventually ended up with >> killing the __dev* marking). > > At first, I considered to remove those __init functions. But it may seem > unreasonable. > > Now I'm trying to reuse wait_for_device_probe() after do_initcalls(). Please > help to review. That patch doesn't actually fix the problem, it just masks it. g.
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:31:05PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > If it is a probe function, then yes the __init annotations need to be > removed or the driver needs to use platform_driver_probe(). This has > been the model as long as I can remember. As long as a driver has a > .probe hook, the driver core can call it at any time. Deferred probe > has only exposed the issue. > > If you want to discard the .probe() hook, then the probe() pointer > needs to be cleared from the driver structure before discarding the > sections. Otherwise the driver core can still call it which is what > happens in deferred probe and can happen if a device gets unbound from > a driver and then re-attached. You're talking about something completely different on the assumption that what is being talked about is the probe hook. It isn't. It's a path for the console initialization which has _always_ been __init marked since the dawn of time, because modules are not supposed to be calling that path. What has been exposed is that console drivers which have resources which are not immediately available no longer have the same guarantees that they used to have (that is, they will be called before the __init section is given away.) Remember: console drivers used not to support removal of themselves. Many still do not support that - in fact, these do not on the basis that they call register_console() but not unregister_console(): drivers/net/ethernet/sgi/ioc3-eth.c drivers/s390/char/con3215.c drivers/s390/char/con3270.c drivers/s390/char/sclp_con.c drivers/s390/char/sclp_vt220.c drivers/tty/amiserial.c drivers/tty/bfin_jtag_comm.c drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c drivers/tty/hvc/hvsi.c drivers/tty/serial/21285.c drivers/tty/serial/68328serial.c drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.c drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_early.c drivers/tty/serial/altera_jtaguart.c drivers/tty/serial/altera_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/apbuart.c drivers/tty/serial/arc_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c drivers/tty/serial/bcm63xx_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/bfin_sport_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/bfin_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c drivers/tty/serial/dz.c drivers/tty/serial/lantiq.c drivers/tty/serial/lpc32xx_hs.c drivers/tty/serial/m32r_sio.c drivers/tty/serial/mcf.c drivers/tty/serial/mpc52xx_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/mpsc.c drivers/tty/serial/netx-serial.c drivers/tty/serial/nwpserial.c drivers/tty/serial/pmac_zilog.c drivers/tty/serial/pnx8xxx_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/sa1100.c drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c drivers/tty/serial/sb1250-duart.c drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c drivers/tty/serial/serial_ks8695.c drivers/tty/serial/serial_txx9.c drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c drivers/tty/serial/vr41xx_siu.c drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c drivers/tty/serial/zs.c drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
On 10 February 2013 06:41, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:31:05PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >> If it is a probe function, then yes the __init annotations need to be >> removed or the driver needs to use platform_driver_probe(). This has >> been the model as long as I can remember. As long as a driver has a >> .probe hook, the driver core can call it at any time. Deferred probe >> has only exposed the issue. >> >> If you want to discard the .probe() hook, then the probe() pointer >> needs to be cleared from the driver structure before discarding the >> sections. Otherwise the driver core can still call it which is what >> happens in deferred probe and can happen if a device gets unbound from >> a driver and then re-attached. > > You're talking about something completely different on the assumption > that what is being talked about is the probe hook. It isn't. It's > a path for the console initialization which has _always_ been __init > marked since the dawn of time, because modules are not supposed to > be calling that path. > > What has been exposed is that console drivers which have resources > which are not immediately available no longer have the same guarantees > that they used to have (that is, they will be called before the __init > section is given away.) > > Remember: console drivers used not to support removal of themselves. > Many still do not support that - in fact, these do not on the basis > that they call register_console() but not unregister_console(): > > drivers/net/ethernet/sgi/ioc3-eth.c > drivers/s390/char/con3215.c > drivers/s390/char/con3270.c > drivers/s390/char/sclp_con.c > drivers/s390/char/sclp_vt220.c > drivers/tty/amiserial.c > drivers/tty/bfin_jtag_comm.c > drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c > drivers/tty/hvc/hvsi.c > drivers/tty/serial/21285.c > drivers/tty/serial/68328serial.c > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.c > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_early.c > drivers/tty/serial/altera_jtaguart.c > drivers/tty/serial/altera_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/apbuart.c > drivers/tty/serial/arc_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c > drivers/tty/serial/bcm63xx_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/bfin_sport_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/bfin_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c > drivers/tty/serial/dz.c > drivers/tty/serial/lantiq.c > drivers/tty/serial/lpc32xx_hs.c > drivers/tty/serial/m32r_sio.c > drivers/tty/serial/mcf.c > drivers/tty/serial/mpc52xx_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/mpsc.c > drivers/tty/serial/netx-serial.c > drivers/tty/serial/nwpserial.c > drivers/tty/serial/pmac_zilog.c > drivers/tty/serial/pnx8xxx_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/sa1100.c > drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > drivers/tty/serial/sb1250-duart.c > drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c > drivers/tty/serial/serial_ks8695.c > drivers/tty/serial/serial_txx9.c > drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c > drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c > drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c > drivers/tty/serial/vr41xx_siu.c > drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > drivers/tty/serial/zs.c > drivers/tty/vt/vt.c I agree on Russell. And console isn't the only one device. In kernel_init_freeable(), we can find that we have an assumption that all initial calls are already finished, and we need to discard them & start the user-mode stuff. But at that time, deferred probe may still not run since they're in another kernel thread. It's very dangerous that user mode stuff start running but device driver isn't ready yet. Then let's move to my error case. Serial driver fails to bind pinctrl, and it's moved into deferred probe list. And kernel_init_freeable() in kernel_init thread keeps working on CPU, the deferred probe doesn't have chances to be scheduled yet. So two issues happen. 1. /dev/console is accessed before serial driver is ready. Since it fails, user can't input anything on console any more. 2. __init memory section is released before serial driver is ready. It results in system hang while deferred probe runs. Regards Haojian
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:41:38 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:31:05PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > If it is a probe function, then yes the __init annotations need to be > > removed or the driver needs to use platform_driver_probe(). This has > > been the model as long as I can remember. As long as a driver has a > > .probe hook, the driver core can call it at any time. Deferred probe > > has only exposed the issue. > > > > If you want to discard the .probe() hook, then the probe() pointer > > needs to be cleared from the driver structure before discarding the > > sections. Otherwise the driver core can still call it which is what > > happens in deferred probe and can happen if a device gets unbound from > > a driver and then re-attached. > > You're talking about something completely different on the assumption > that what is being talked about is the probe hook. It isn't. It's > a path for the console initialization which has _always_ been __init > marked since the dawn of time, because modules are not supposed to > be calling that path. Sorry, you're right. Hitting reply too quickly I guess. However, the point still stands that anything that can be called from a .probe() path cannot be in an __init section with the current driver model. A driver can even be unbound from a device and reattached at runtime. That would also cause problems. > What has been exposed is that console drivers which have resources > which are not immediately available no longer have the same guarantees > that they used to have (that is, they will be called before the __init > section is given away.) Okay, I'll reply to Haojian's proposed solution patch on this point. g.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:31:53 +0800, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote: > I agree on Russell. And console isn't the only one device. > In kernel_init_freeable(), we can find that we have an > assumption that all initial calls are already finished, and > we need to discard them & start the user-mode stuff. > But at that time, deferred probe may still not run since > they're in another kernel thread. It's very dangerous that > user mode stuff start running but device driver isn't ready > yet. Linux has been moving in that direction for quite a while now. Userspace can start before a lot of devices are ready. Mass storage for instance. An initramfs can start userspace, but if the real rootfs is on rotating storage, then it will have to wait for it to become ready before mounting the real root. Distributions ran into this problem quite a while ago. That said, console is pretty important, and it isn't good that the fallout of deferred probe is that console gets initialized even later. Linus, we should get some engineers around a whiteboard at connect and map out the initialization order issues. I've been pushing for moving as much as possible to device_initcall() time, which in general I think is the right thing to do, but this is the downside. > Then let's move to my error case. Serial driver fails to > bind pinctrl, and it's moved into deferred probe list. And > kernel_init_freeable() in kernel_init thread keeps working > on CPU, the deferred probe doesn't have chances to be > scheduled yet. So two issues happen. > 1. /dev/console is accessed before serial driver is ready. > Since it fails, user can't input anything on console any > more. This is a fair point and is a better argument for me to having a pass over the deferred drivers before exiting the device initcalls. > 2. __init memory section is released before serial driver > is ready. It results in system hang while deferred probe > runs. The __init section in a .probe() path is a problem in and of itself. I do think that the __init annotations either need to be removed or the hooks into them need to be cleared when the init sections are discarded. g.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:04:59PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:41:38 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:31:05PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > If it is a probe function, then yes the __init annotations need to be > > > removed or the driver needs to use platform_driver_probe(). This has > > > been the model as long as I can remember. As long as a driver has a > > > .probe hook, the driver core can call it at any time. Deferred probe > > > has only exposed the issue. > > > > > > If you want to discard the .probe() hook, then the probe() pointer > > > needs to be cleared from the driver structure before discarding the > > > sections. Otherwise the driver core can still call it which is what > > > happens in deferred probe and can happen if a device gets unbound from > > > a driver and then re-attached. > > > > You're talking about something completely different on the assumption > > that what is being talked about is the probe hook. It isn't. It's > > a path for the console initialization which has _always_ been __init > > marked since the dawn of time, because modules are not supposed to > > be calling that path. > > Sorry, you're right. Hitting reply too quickly I guess. > > However, the point still stands that anything that can be called from > a .probe() path cannot be in an __init section with the current driver > model. A driver can even be unbound from a device and reattached at > runtime. That would also cause problems. However, it reveals much bigger problems - that is, if you defer the probe of the console, what happens when we need to open the console... Although you can say that, there's _much_ bigger problems here if you delay console initialization - you'll effectively end up calling init with no system console in place, which means you'll see no output from init until the deferred probe sorts itself out. Yes, it's an unintended side effect of deferred probing, but nevertheless one which needs to be resolved such that the console _is_ initialized before it's required, which happens _before_ the init section is discarded.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:04:59PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:41:38 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:31:05PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >> > > If it is a probe function, then yes the __init annotations need to be >> > > removed or the driver needs to use platform_driver_probe(). This has >> > > been the model as long as I can remember. As long as a driver has a >> > > .probe hook, the driver core can call it at any time. Deferred probe >> > > has only exposed the issue. >> > > >> > > If you want to discard the .probe() hook, then the probe() pointer >> > > needs to be cleared from the driver structure before discarding the >> > > sections. Otherwise the driver core can still call it which is what >> > > happens in deferred probe and can happen if a device gets unbound from >> > > a driver and then re-attached. >> > >> > You're talking about something completely different on the assumption >> > that what is being talked about is the probe hook. It isn't. It's >> > a path for the console initialization which has _always_ been __init >> > marked since the dawn of time, because modules are not supposed to >> > be calling that path. >> >> Sorry, you're right. Hitting reply too quickly I guess. >> >> However, the point still stands that anything that can be called from >> a .probe() path cannot be in an __init section with the current driver >> model. A driver can even be unbound from a device and reattached at >> runtime. That would also cause problems. > > However, it reveals much bigger problems - that is, if you defer the > probe of the console, what happens when we need to open the console... > > Although you can say that, there's _much_ bigger problems here if you > delay console initialization - you'll effectively end up calling init > with no system console in place, which means you'll see no output from > init until the deferred probe sorts itself out. > > Yes, it's an unintended side effect of deferred probing, but nevertheless > one which needs to be resolved such that the console _is_ initialized > before it's required, which happens _before_ the init section is > discarded. I've replied with a suggested solution to Haojian's patch to driver core. If he can test it and post a proper patch, then I'll ack it. g.
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c index 3ea5408..d43d530 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c @@ -1810,7 +1810,7 @@ pl011_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s, unsigned int count) clk_disable(uap->clk); } -static void __init +static void pl011_console_get_options(struct uart_amba_port *uap, int *baud, int *parity, int *bits) { @@ -1845,7 +1845,7 @@ pl011_console_get_options(struct uart_amba_port *uap, int *baud, } } -static int __init pl011_console_setup(struct console *co, char *options) +static int pl011_console_setup(struct console *co, char *options) { struct uart_amba_port *uap; int baud = 38400;
If uart driver is probed defer, console_setup will be called later after __init && __initdata sections destroyed. And amba_console isn't defined in __init or __initdata section. So we needn't define pl011_console_setup() && pl011_console_get_options() in __init section. Signed-off-by: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org --- drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)