Hello Guenter,
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:54:42PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:04:55PM -0400, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > As long as there is no other non-const variable marked __initdata in the
> > same compilation unit it doesn't hurt. If there were one however
> > compilation would fail with
> >
> > error: $variablename causes a section type conflict
> >
> > because a section containing const variables is marked read only and so
> > cannot contain non-const variables.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > changes since (implicit) v1:
> > - drop wrong changes to drivers/hwmon/w83627hf.c
> >
> > drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> > index a25350c..54922ed 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> > @@ -2619,15 +2619,15 @@ static struct platform_driver w83627ehf_driver = {
> > static int __init w83627ehf_find(int sioaddr, unsigned short *addr,
> > struct w83627ehf_sio_data *sio_data)
> > {
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627EHF[] = "W83627EHF";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627EHG[] = "W83627EHG";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627DHG[] = "W83627DHG";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627DHG_P[] = "W83627DHG-P";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627UHG[] = "W83627UHG";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83667HG[] = "W83667HG";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83667HG_B[] = "W83667HG-B";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_NCT6775[] = "NCT6775F";
> > - static const char __initdata sio_name_NCT6776[] = "NCT6776F";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83627EHF[] __initconst = "W83627EHF";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83627EHG[] __initconst = "W83627EHG";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83627DHG[] __initconst = "W83627DHG";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83627DHG_P[] __initconst = "W83627DHG-P";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83627UHG[] __initconst = "W83627UHG";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83667HG[] __initconst = "W83667HG";
> > + static const char sio_name_W83667HG_B[] __initconst = "W83667HG-B";
> > + static const char sio_name_NCT6775[] __initconst = "NCT6775F";
> > + static const char sio_name_NCT6776[] __initconst = "NCT6776F";
> >
> Applied.
>
> Just wondering: Why not the following ?
>
> > + static const char __initconst sio_name_NCT6776[] = "NCT6776F";
>
> It does not make a difference in the generated code, and appears to be
> less confusing, at least to me.
hmm, I thought it does, maybe it's compiler dependant?! At least
gcc-4.4.info tells:
An attribute specifier list may appear immediately before the
comma, `=' or semicolon terminating the declaration of an
identifier other than a function definition.
and include/linux/init.h has:
You should insert __initdata between the variable name and equal
sign followed by value [...].
I seem to remember that placing the attribute at the wrong place for a
function made gcc ignore it (or apply it so something unintended).
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
