From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Finger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:45:54 -0600 Message-ID: <50DE2F32.1010207@lwfinger.net> References: <50DE1A74.4040607@lwfinger.net> <3226192.H2BxHSuKio@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:53001 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754236Ab2L1Xp5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:45:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3226192.H2BxHSuKio@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: viresh kumar , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list , LKML On 12/28/2012 05:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote: >> Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to >> separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file >> (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module >> named cpufreq_governor is created. It seems that kmake is smart enough to create >> a separate module whenever more than one module includes the same object file. >> As drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c contains no MODULE directives, the >> resulting module has no license specified, which results in logging of a "module >> license 'unspecified' taints kernel". In addition, a number of globals are >> exported GPL only, and are therefore not available. >> >> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger >> --- >> >> This particular patch is the simplest possible; however, it hides the intent. I >> have prepared the longer version that makes the reason clearer by adding a new >> configuration variable that is dependent on the other two, and rearranges >> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile. That version could be submitted if that is what is >> desired. > > Yes, please. I'll send it shortly. >> The changes to cpufreq_governor.c are the same as in this version. > > I wonder if that's avoidable? The intention is not to create an additional > module, clearly. It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to understand why it is forcing a new module. Perhaps some expert knows what Kconfig or Makefile magic will prevent that. Larry