[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Mark Brown]

The cpufreq init function is referenced from the driver structure and
we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll
never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency
infrastructure to complain. Just remove the __init annotation to avoid
noise from the build.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
index 74c0e83..4375b97 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static void __init s3c64xx_cpufreq_config_regulator(void)
 }
 #endif
 
-static int __init s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+static int s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
 	int ret;
 	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq;
-- 
1.7.2.3

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Kukjin Kim]

Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> The cpufreq init function is referenced from the driver structure and
> we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll
> never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency
> infrastructure to complain. Just remove the __init annotation to avoid
> noise from the build.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c b/arch/arm/mach-
> s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> index 74c0e83..4375b97 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static void __init
s3c64xx_cpufreq_config_regulator(void)
>  }
>  #endif
> 
> -static int __init s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy
*policy)
> +static int s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq;
> --

Looks ok, applied into s5p-fixes-for-linus for 38 :)
Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Kukjin Kim]

Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
> Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > The cpufreq init function is referenced from the driver structure and
> > we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll
> > never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency
> > infrastructure to complain. Just remove the __init annotation to avoid
> > noise from the build.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c b/arch/arm/mach-
> > s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> > index 74c0e83..4375b97 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static void __init
> s3c64xx_cpufreq_config_regulator(void)
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >
> > -static int __init s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy)
> > +static int s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  {
> >  	int ret;
> >  	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq;
> > --
> 
> Looks ok, applied into s5p-fixes-for-linus for 38 :)
> Thanks.
> 
Oops, I missed 'pull request' before 38 :(
So will apply this into for-next...

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:04:36PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:

> Oops, I missed 'pull request' before 38 :(
> So will apply this into for-next...

No worries, it's a warning fix rather than something urgent.

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> The cpufreq init function is referenced from the driver structure and
> we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll
> never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency
> infrastructure to complain. Just remove the __init annotation to avoid
> noise from the build.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> index 74c0e83..4375b97 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpufreq.c
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static void __init s3c64xx_cpufreq_config_regulator(void)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> -static int __init s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +static int s3c64xx_cpufreq_driver_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq;
Actually this is warning is a false positive.  There is a section
mismatch, but it is never a problem because the .init callback is only
called by cpufreq_register_driver. To get rid of the warning the right
fix is to remove the .init callback from struct cpufreq_driver and
change the prototype of cpufreq_register_driver to

	int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *, int (*)(struct cpufreq_policy *))

(that is pass the init callback to cpufreq_register_driver).

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll
> > never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency

> Actually this is warning is a false positive.  There is a section
> mismatch, but it is never a problem because the .init callback is only
> called by cpufreq_register_driver. To get rid of the warning the right
> fix is to remove the .init callback from struct cpufreq_driver and
> change the prototype of cpufreq_register_driver to

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.

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:49:59AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll
> > > never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency
> 
> > Actually this is warning is a false positive.  There is a section
> > mismatch, but it is never a problem because the .init callback is only
> > called by cpufreq_register_driver. To get rid of the warning the right
> > fix is to remove the .init callback from struct cpufreq_driver and
> > change the prototype of cpufreq_register_driver to
> 
> 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.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

[Mark Brown]

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.