| Message ID | 1308256260-15597-1-git-send-email-premi@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> writes: > Fix the section mismatch warning: > > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21118): Section mismatch > in reference from the function pm_dbg_init() to the > function .init.text:pwrdms_setup() > The function pm_dbg_init() references > the function __init pwrdms_setup(). > This is often because pm_dbg_init lacks a __init > annotation or the annotation of pwrdms_setup is wrong. > > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> > --- > Applies to current linux-omap master A previous commit just removed the __init annotation here because of a different conflict with the regset init. The regset code is now removed in my queue for 3.1, so this patch is fine on top of that series. Queueing for v3.1 (branch: for_3.1/pm-misc) Thanks, Kevin > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c > index e01da45..ef33273 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c > @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static int option_set(void *data, u64 val) > > DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(pm_dbg_option_fops, option_get, option_set, "%llu\n"); > > -static int pm_dbg_init(void) > +static int __init pm_dbg_init(void) > { > int i; > struct dentry *d;
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:09:39PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> writes: > > > Fix the section mismatch warning: > > > > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21118): Section mismatch > > in reference from the function pm_dbg_init() to the > > function .init.text:pwrdms_setup() > > The function pm_dbg_init() references > > the function __init pwrdms_setup(). > > This is often because pm_dbg_init lacks a __init > > annotation or the annotation of pwrdms_setup is wrong. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> > > --- > > Applies to current linux-omap master > > A previous commit just removed the __init annotation here because of a > different conflict with the regset init. The regset code is now > removed in my queue for 3.1, so this patch is fine on top of that > series. > > Queueing for v3.1 (branch: for_3.1/pm-misc) Sigh. Please put some thought into it first and stop applying patches without first doing some analysis and test-buliding the thing. Otherwise you're going to be applying patches for ever which add and delete these things. If you make pm_dbg_init() __init, then you also have to make pm_dbg_regset_init() __init too. What about the callers to pm_dbg_regset_init() - are these marked __init or not? If not, they too will have to be marked __init, etc. If that's not possible, then the __init attribute must be deleted from pwrdms_setup().
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:09:39PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> writes: >> >> > Fix the section mismatch warning: >> > >> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21118): Section mismatch >> > in reference from the function pm_dbg_init() to the >> > function .init.text:pwrdms_setup() >> > The function pm_dbg_init() references >> > the function __init pwrdms_setup(). >> > This is often because pm_dbg_init lacks a __init >> > annotation or the annotation of pwrdms_setup is wrong. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> >> > --- >> > Applies to current linux-omap master >> >> A previous commit just removed the __init annotation here because of a >> different conflict with the regset init. The regset code is now >> removed in my queue for 3.1, so this patch is fine on top of that >> series. >> >> Queueing for v3.1 (branch: for_3.1/pm-misc) > > Sigh. Please put some thought into it first and stop applying patches > without first doing some analysis and test-buliding the thing. Otherwise > you're going to be applying patches for ever which add and delete > these things. > > If you make pm_dbg_init() __init, then you also have to make > pm_dbg_regset_init() __init too. What about the callers to > pm_dbg_regset_init() - are these marked __init or not? If not, > they too will have to be marked __init, etc. > > If that's not possible, then the __init attribute must be deleted > from pwrdms_setup(). As I mentioned above, the regset code (pm_dbg_regset_*) is being removed in a pending series I already have queued. Thus, adding back the __init here is fine. It was thought about and test built. Kevin
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c index e01da45..ef33273 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static int option_set(void *data, u64 val) DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(pm_dbg_option_fops, option_get, option_set, "%llu\n"); -static int pm_dbg_init(void) +static int __init pm_dbg_init(void) { int i; struct dentry *d;
Fix the section mismatch warning: WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21118): Section mismatch in reference from the function pm_dbg_init() to the function .init.text:pwrdms_setup() The function pm_dbg_init() references the function __init pwrdms_setup(). This is often because pm_dbg_init lacks a __init annotation or the annotation of pwrdms_setup is wrong. Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com> --- Applies to current linux-omap master arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm-debug.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)