From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:37:36 +0100 Subject: [Patch v3 3/3] drivers: CCI: add ARM CCI PMU support In-Reply-To: <5220AD5B.2090300@arm.com> References: <1377183748-5717-1-git-send-email-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <1377183748-5717-4-git-send-email-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20130830112448.GC12160@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <5220AD5B.2090300@arm.com> Message-ID: <20130830143736.GI12160@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:34:03PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote: > On 30/08/13 12:24, Will Deacon wrote: > > cci_probed is marked as __init, so you have a section mismatch here: > > > > arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c:63:2: warning: #warning "TODO: return_address should use unwind tables" [-Wcpp] > > WARNING: drivers/bus/built-in.o(.text+0xb48): Section mismatch in reference from the function cci_platform_probe() to the function .init.text:cci_probed() > > The function cci_platform_probe() references > > the function __init cci_probed(). > > This is often because cci_platform_probe lacks a __init > > annotation or the annotation of cci_probed is wrong. > > > > Good catch. Missed this one. > > > Unfortunately, resolving this requires removing a bunch of annotations (see > > patch below), so you might want to reconsider how the probe checking is > > handled (by moving the cci_init_status check out of cci_init). > > > > In cci_platform_probe, cci_probed is called to check whether the CCI has > been initialised, and also to initialise it if required. > > Even if the check for cci_init_status is moved out, I'll still need to > call cci_init which will again cause a section mis-match. Ok. > I think removing the annotations is the way to go. Is it OK to fold your > patch into the CCI PMU patch, or you prefer to keep it separate? I can just merge it in when I take your patches into my tree (which I'll do now...). Cheers, Will