[PATCH] wdt: sunxi: Fix section mismatch

[PATCH] wdt: sunxi: Fix section mismatch

[Maxime Ripard]

This driver has a section mismatch, for probe and remove functions,
leading to the following warning during the compilation.

WARNING: drivers/watchdog/built-in.o(.data+0x24): Section mismatch in
reference from the variable sunxi_wdt_driver to the function
.init.text:sunxi_wdt_probe()
The variable sunxi_wdt_driver references
the function __init sunxi_wdt_probe()

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
---
 drivers/watchdog/sunxi_wdt.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sunxi_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/sunxi_wdt.c
index 1f94b42..f6caa77 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/sunxi_wdt.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/sunxi_wdt.c
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static const struct watchdog_ops sunxi_wdt_ops = {
 	.set_timeout	= sunxi_wdt_set_timeout,
 };
 
-static int __init sunxi_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static int sunxi_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct sunxi_wdt_dev *sunxi_wdt;
 	struct resource *res;
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static int __init sunxi_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int __exit sunxi_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static int sunxi_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct sunxi_wdt_dev *sunxi_wdt = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
-- 
1.8.4

[PATCH] wdt: sunxi: Fix section mismatch

[Guenter Roeck]

On 10/05/2013 07:20 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> This driver has a section mismatch, for probe and remove functions,
> leading to the following warning during the compilation.
>
> WARNING: drivers/watchdog/built-in.o(.data+0x24): Section mismatch in
> reference from the variable sunxi_wdt_driver to the function
> .init.text:sunxi_wdt_probe()
> The variable sunxi_wdt_driver references
> the function __init sunxi_wdt_probe()
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>

Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

[PATCH] wdt: sunxi: Fix section mismatch

[Maxime Ripard]

Hi Wim,

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 04:20:17PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> This driver has a section mismatch, for probe and remove functions,
> leading to the following warning during the compilation.
> 
> WARNING: drivers/watchdog/built-in.o(.data+0x24): Section mismatch in
> reference from the variable sunxi_wdt_driver to the function
> .init.text:sunxi_wdt_probe()
> The variable sunxi_wdt_driver references
> the function __init sunxi_wdt_probe()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>

It would be great if it could go in 3.12.

Do you want to take it, or can I merge it through my tree, with your
Acked-by?

Thanks,
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131011/0789ceb6/attachment.sig>

[PATCH] wdt: sunxi: Fix section mismatch

[Guenter Roeck]

On 10/11/2013 12:15 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Wim,
>
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 04:20:17PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> This driver has a section mismatch, for probe and remove functions,
>> leading to the following warning during the compilation.
>>
>> WARNING: drivers/watchdog/built-in.o(.data+0x24): Section mismatch in
>> reference from the variable sunxi_wdt_driver to the function
>> .init.text:sunxi_wdt_probe()
>> The variable sunxi_wdt_driver references
>> the function __init sunxi_wdt_probe()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>
> It would be great if it could go in 3.12.
>

Hi Maxime,

Just wondering - is this a nuisance or does it cause a real problem ?

> Do you want to take it, or can I merge it through my tree, with your
> Acked-by?
>

In addition to this patch, the following two would also be good to have in 3.12.
	http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-watchdog/msg02867.html
	http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-watchdog/msg02950.html

Thanks,
Guenter