linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MFD: TWL/TPS: fix twl_probe section mismatch warning in mfd/twl-core.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Dec 2010 18:40:38 -0700 (MST)
From:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
To:	Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@...onical.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MFD: TWL/TPS: fix twl_probe section mismatch warning in
 mfd/twl-core.c

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Bryan Wu wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com> wrote:
> >
> > Fix the following section mismatch warning when building omap2plus_defconfig:
> >
> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.data+0x47d7c): Section mismatch in reference from the variable twl_driver to the function .init.text:twl_probe()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
> > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/twl-core.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> > index 35275ba..615cf38 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> > @@ -969,7 +969,7 @@ static int twl_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  }
> >
> >  /* NOTE:  this driver only handles a single twl4030/tps659x0 chip */
> > -static int __init
> > +static int
> 
> I think we might change __init to __devinit.
> 
> >  twl_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> >  {
> >        int                             status;
> > --

That's fine with me.  Samuel et al, Bryan's already done a patch 
for this stuff:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/367011/

so we should use that instead, if you're happy with it.  Samuel, maybe we 
could get an ack from you on it?


- Paul