Re: [Fixed PATCH] hpt366: fix section mismatch warnings

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Saturday 23 February 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> hpt366: fix section mismatch warnings
> 
> Fix following warnings:
> WARNING: o-sparc64/vmlinux.o(.data+0x195a38): Section mismatch in reference from the variable hpt37x_info.0 to the variable .devinit.data:hpt370
> WARNING: o-sparc64/vmlinux.o(.data+0x195a40): Section mismatch in reference from the variable hpt37x_info.0 to the variable .devinit.data:hpt370a
> WARNING: o-sparc64/vmlinux.o(.data+0x195a48): Section mismatch in reference from the variable hpt37x_info.0 to the variable .devinit.data:hpt372
> WARNING: o-sparc64/vmlinux.o(.data+0x195a50): Section mismatch in reference from the variable hpt37x_info.0 to the variable .devinit.data:hpt372n
> 
> Replace a static array with a small switch resulting in
> more readable code.
> Mark the pci table __devinitconst.
> 
> A lot of variables are const but annotated __devinitdata.
> Annotating them __devinitconst would cause a section type
> conflict error when build for 64 bit powerpc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
> Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
> ---

thanks, applied

> The first patch I posted caused a section type conflict when
> build for 64 bit powerpc. The actual cause of this is know and unavoidable
> when we start to declare variables const.
> The patch attached is much simpler as the transition from __devinitdata
> to __devinitconst turned out to be bogus.

Weird, I thought that the main purpose of __devinitconst was to replace
const + __devinitdata?