* [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next
@ 2012-04-24 15:13 Gerard Snitselaar
2012-04-24 16:16 ` Stephen Warren
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gerard Snitselaar @ 2012-04-24 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sameo; +Cc: ldewangan, linux-kernel
tps65910_i2c_probe() calls tps65910_sleepinit() which is annnotated __init.
Signed-off-by: Gerard Snitselaar <dev@snitselaar.org>
---
drivers/mfd/tps65910.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c
index ae7f47b..c050ae5 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ err_sleep_init:
}
-static int tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
+static int __init tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
const struct i2c_device_id *id)
{
struct tps65910 *tps65910;
--
1.7.7.6
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next
2012-04-24 15:13 [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next Gerard Snitselaar
@ 2012-04-24 16:16 ` Stephen Warren
2012-04-25 7:13 ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-04-26 21:34 ` Mark Brown
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Warren @ 2012-04-24 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerard Snitselaar; +Cc: sameo, ldewangan, linux-kernel
On 04/24/2012 09:13 AM, Gerard Snitselaar wrote:
> tps65910_i2c_probe() calls tps65910_sleepinit() which is annnotated __init.
> -static int tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> +static int __init tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
Shouldn't this be __devinit not __init?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next
2012-04-24 15:13 [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next Gerard Snitselaar
2012-04-24 16:16 ` Stephen Warren
@ 2012-04-25 7:13 ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-04-26 21:34 ` Mark Brown
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2012-04-25 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerard Snitselaar; +Cc: sameo@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
On Tuesday 24 April 2012 08:43 PM, Gerard Snitselaar wrote:
> tps65910_i2c_probe() calls tps65910_sleepinit() which is annnotated __init.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gerard Snitselaar<dev@snitselaar.org>
> ---
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next
2012-04-24 15:13 [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next Gerard Snitselaar
2012-04-24 16:16 ` Stephen Warren
2012-04-25 7:13 ` Laxman Dewangan
@ 2012-04-26 21:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-27 2:40 ` Gerard Snitselaar
2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2012-04-26 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerard Snitselaar; +Cc: sameo, ldewangan, linux-kernel
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:13:55AM -0700, Gerard Snitselaar wrote:
> -static int tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> +static int __init tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
I sent a separate fix for this earlier on - __init is the wrong
annotation here, a device init function should be marked __devinit.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next
2012-04-26 21:34 ` Mark Brown
@ 2012-04-27 2:40 ` Gerard Snitselaar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gerard Snitselaar @ 2012-04-27 2:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown; +Cc: sameo, ldewangan, linux-kernel
On Thu Apr 26 12, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:13:55AM -0700, Gerard Snitselaar wrote:
>
> > -static int tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > +static int __init tps65910_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>
> I sent a separate fix for this earlier on - __init is the wrong
> annotation here, a device init function should be marked __devinit.
I missed your patch when I did a search initially. Does it also change the annotation of tps65910_sleepinit() to __devinit ? If all devices are supposed to have their init functions annotated __devinit is the comment in correct in init.h which says the __dev* annotations are used for HOTPLUG? Is this power management chip hotpluggable?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-27 2:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-04-24 15:13 [PATCH] mfd/tps65910: fix section mismatch in linux-next Gerard Snitselaar
2012-04-24 16:16 ` Stephen Warren
2012-04-25 7:13 ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-04-26 21:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-27 2:40 ` Gerard Snitselaar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox