From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:53:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20110316105346.GA14125@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1299769093-14516-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110316083811.GG13316@pengutronix.de> <20110316094959.GB2688@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110316101259.GH13316@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:37371 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751825Ab1CPKxt (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:53:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110316101259.GH13316@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, Ben Dooks On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:13:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:49:59AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > That's what I said above, pretty much. Ideally we'd have a way of > > annotating the call sites so that the linker infrastructure rather = than > > having to faff about splitting the structures like this. > You can mark the driver struct using __ref. But IMHO not saving a > reference to a function only used once is cleaner. It's pretty annoying to have to define two structs for the affected drivers (it's not like cpufreq is the only affected subsystem here) - there's good reasons why we use things like __devexit_p() rather than split structs for common cases like this. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:53:47 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init In-Reply-To: <20110316101259.GH13316@pengutronix.de> References: <1299769093-14516-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110316083811.GG13316@pengutronix.de> <20110316094959.GB2688@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110316101259.GH13316@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20110316105346.GA14125@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:13:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:49:59AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > That's what I said above, pretty much. Ideally we'd have a way of > > annotating the call sites so that the linker infrastructure rather than > > having to faff about splitting the structures like this. > You can mark the driver struct using __ref. But IMHO not saving a > reference to a function only used once is cleaner. It's pretty annoying to have to define two structs for the affected drivers (it's not like cpufreq is the only affected subsystem here) - there's good reasons why we use things like __devexit_p() rather than split structs for common cases like this.