linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120427024012.GA9480@cantor.Home>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:40:12 -0700
From:	Gerard Snitselaar <dev@...tselaar.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	sameo@...ux.intel.com, ldewangan@...dia.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next

On Thu Apr 26 12, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:13:55AM -0700, Gerard Snitselaar wrote:
> 
> > -static int tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > +static int __init tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >  			    const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> 
> I sent a separate fix for this earlier on - __init is the wrong
> annotation here, a device init function should be marked __devinit.

I missed your patch when I did a search initially. Does it also change the annotation of tps65910_sleepinit() to __devinit ? If all devices are supposed to have their init functions annotated __devinit is the comment in correct in init.h which says the __dev* annotations are used for HOTPLUG? Is this power management chip hotpluggable?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/