On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 06:14:55PM +0530, ext Premi, Sanjeev wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:56 AM > > To: Premi, Sanjeev > > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix section mismatch warning. > > > > I know that Beagle and Overo get the same warnings, so this > > isn't really a sufficient fix... > > Was trying to fix for EVM. Can extend to these boards once we have a fix. > > > > > On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Sanjeev Premi wrote: > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c > > > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static struct twl4030_madc_platform_data > > > omap3evm_madc_data = { > > > .irq_line = 1, > > > }; > > > > > > -static struct twl4030_platform_data omap3evm_twldata = { > > > +static struct twl4030_platform_data __initdata omap3evm_twldata = { > > > > ... and that's incorrect in any case, since that data is used > > by probe() code that's doesn't sit in an init section. __initdata_or_module would do the trick for static and dynamically linked modules. When building it statically, we'd get a bit of shrinkage, right ? > Function probe() would be in __devinit. Changing __initdata to __devinit > would be fine for compilation. Do you see any issues with it? doesn't make sense. > BTW, I could not locate the definition of platform_driver for twl4030 > to verify if probe() is indeed in __devinit. It's in drivers/base/platform.c -- balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
