Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: qcom-kryo: Fix section mismatch warning

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 19-09-18, 14:50, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19-09-18, 14:45, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x8aa424): Section mismatch in reference from
> > > the function qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe() to the function
> > > .init.text:qcom_cpufreq_kryo_get_msm_id()
> > > The function qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe() references
> > > the function __init qcom_cpufreq_kryo_get_msm_id().
> > > This is often because qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe lacks a __init
> > > annotation or the annotation of qcom_cpufreq_kryo_get_msm_id is wrong.
> > >
> > > Add the '__init' annotation to qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe so that there is
> > > no more mismatch warning.
> > 
> > I wonder why this driver has an exit function marked __init rather
> > than __exit?
> 
> I think it was just a mistake.
> 
> > Does that mean it gets cleaned up after kernel init, and
> > so on unloading of the driver, the kernel jumps to unmapped memory?
> 
> The __init/exit sections are only useful when the driver is builtin
> and so there is no unloading. Yeah, if you would have tried to call
> shutdown for the kernel, it may have crashed or something. I don't
> know.
> 
> > Does this patch now produce a warning for `qcom_cpufreq_kryo_driver`
> > referencing `qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe`?
> 
> Why should it ? It doesn't though.

I thought you replied to my commit where I marked the exit routine
with __exit and realised just now that it wasn't the case. I haven't
build-tested this thing, but the question still stands. Why should it
?

-- 
viresh