[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201210121105.09517.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:05:09 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: arm@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] clk: don't mark clkdev_add_table as init
On Friday 12 October 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:13:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > s3c2440_clk_add is a subsys_interface method and calls clkdev_add_table,
> > which means we might be calling it after the __init section is
> > discarded.
> >
> > Without this patch, building mini2440_defconfig results in:
> >
> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x9848): Section mismatch in reference from the function s3c2440_clk_add() to the function .init.text:clkdev_add_table()
> > The function s3c2440_clk_add() references
> > the function __init clkdev_add_table().
> > This is often because s3c2440_clk_add lacks a __init
> > annotation or the annotation of clkdev_add_table is wrong.
>
> I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. I suspect this comes from the
> stupidly complex samsung code, and that this is actually safe - I suspect
> that s3c2440_clk_add() needs to be appropriately marked, but then you end
> up having to trace its call path through various structures etc.
Yes, you are right. I have verified now that the only code path into
s3c2440_clk_add() is from "int __init s3c2440_init(void)", so
s3c2440_clk_add can be marked __init_refok.
I'll follow up with a new patch to replace this one.
Arnd
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists