On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 07:32:42AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 07:56 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:04:09PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 23:30 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > OK thanks I've found a clean solution minimal solution to this as follows. This now > > > > builds fine. Is this a fine work around for now ? > > > Almost. You also need: > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/tables.h b/include/linux/tables.h > > > index a39ab03..3fa8d4d 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/tables.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/tables.h > > > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ > > > __attribute__((used, \ > > > weak, \ > > > __aligned__(LINUX_SECTION_ALIGNMENT(name)),\ > > > - section(SECTION_TBL(SECTION_RODATA, \ > > > + section(SECTION_TBL(SECTION_TBL_RO, \ > > > name, level)))) > > > > > > /** > > > > > > Otherwise, start and end RO table markers end up in different sections. > > I thought that was not needed as weak attributes already force it to go to > > .const ? Anyway I've added this as well. Thanks! > > The section attribute forced both variables into .rodata but the weak > attribute prevented accesses from using the SB-relative reloc. The > non-weak variable is the one that led to the link error. I ask as set_section_tbl_type() was not patched for instance, so firmware/Makefile still uses SECTION_RODATA, and it compiles and links fine. Should that also be using then SECTION_TBL_RO ? Or do we only need this for the C constructors ? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
