On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:33:51PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > 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? The problem we face is that gcc in some cases mark the destination section READ-ONLY and in other cases not. So if we annotate two variables to go into the same section and gcc only annotate one of them READ-ONLY them we will have a section type conflict. gcc is not consistent across architectures what to mark READ-ONLY and not. And what we saw here was a combination where on x86 the destinatin section were marked equal (READ-ONLY or not READ-ONLY) but on powerpc were marked different. One was marked READ-ONLY the other was not. So when playing with const it is improtant to try out with a 64 bit gcc for powerpc to see if it causes any section type conflict. Note: 32 bit gcc does not have this issue. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
