I can't see this one queued up anywhere. Did it just slip through the
cracks, or are there any problems with it?
BR,
Bjarne Steinsbo
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pointers to functions that are annotated as __devexit should be
> protected by the __devexit_p() macro.
>
> This fixes a build failure for OMAP when defined(CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP) &&
> !defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
>
> Signed-off-by: Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
> index 34c01a7..67bc6ce 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
> @@ -1002,7 +1002,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_sr_remove(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> static struct platform_driver smartreflex_driver = {
> - .remove = omap_sr_remove,
> + .remove = __devexit_p(omap_sr_remove),
> .driver = {
> .name = "smartreflex",
> },
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
> index c22217c..f7150ba 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
> @@ -2105,7 +2105,7 @@ static int __devexit
> omap_system_dma_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> static struct platform_driver omap_system_dma_driver = {
> .probe = omap_system_dma_probe,
> - .remove = omap_system_dma_remove,
> + .remove = __devexit_p(omap_system_dma_remove),
> .driver = {
> .name = "omap_dma_system"
> },
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
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
