Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:09:39PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Sanjeev Premi <premi@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Fix the section mismatch warning: >> > >> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21118): Section mismatch >> > in reference from the function pm_dbg_init() to the >> > function .init.text:pwrdms_setup() >> > The function pm_dbg_init() references >> > the function __init pwrdms_setup(). >> > This is often because pm_dbg_init lacks a __init >> > annotation or the annotation of pwrdms_setup is wrong. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi@xxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Applies to current linux-omap master >> >> A previous commit just removed the __init annotation here because of a >> different conflict with the regset init. The regset code is now >> removed in my queue for 3.1, so this patch is fine on top of that >> series. >> >> Queueing for v3.1 (branch: for_3.1/pm-misc) > > Sigh. Please put some thought into it first and stop applying patches > without first doing some analysis and test-buliding the thing. Otherwise > you're going to be applying patches for ever which add and delete > these things. > > If you make pm_dbg_init() __init, then you also have to make > pm_dbg_regset_init() __init too. What about the callers to > pm_dbg_regset_init() - are these marked __init or not? If not, > they too will have to be marked __init, etc. > > If that's not possible, then the __init attribute must be deleted > from pwrdms_setup(). As I mentioned above, the regset code (pm_dbg_regset_*) is being removed in a pending series I already have queued. Thus, adding back the __init here is fine. It was thought about and test built. Kevin -- 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
