On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:32:45PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Thierry Reding >> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:44:31AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > For MIPS, Thierry Reding's patch in linux-next (PCI: Keep pci_fixup_irqs() >> >> > around after init) causes: >> >> > >> >> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x22c784): Section mismatch in reference from the >> >> > function pci_fixup_irqs() to the function .init.text:pcibios_update_irq() >> >> > >> >> > The MIPS implementation of pcibios_update_irq() is __init, so there is >> >> > conflict with the removal of __init from pci_fixup_irqs() and >> >> > pdev_fixup_irq(). >> >> > >> >> > Can you guys either remove the patch from linux-next, or improve it to also >> >> > fix up any architecture implementations of pdev_update_irq()? >> >> >> >> Crap, there are lots of arches with this issue. I'll fix it up. >> >> Thanks for pointing it out! >> > >> > Oh wow... looks like I've opened a can of worms there. This requires >> > quite a lot of other functions to have their annotations removed as >> > well. Bjorn, how do you want to handle this? >> >> David said "pdev_update_irq()," but I think he meant "pcibios_update_irq()." >> >> Almost all the pcibios_update_irq() implementations are identical, so >> I think I'll just supply a weak implementation and remove the >> redundant arch versions. > > That makes sense. However I've just tested a build with section mismatch > debugging enabled on ARM and there are a few more that need __init or > __devinit removed to get rid of the warnings: > > pci_common_init() > pcibios_init_hw() > pcibios_init_resources() > pcibios_swizzle() > pcibios_update_irq() > > pci_scan_root_bus() also needs __devinit removed. I haven't checked the > other architectures because I'll have to build cross-compilers for them > first, but I suspect most of them will have a similar list. I'm not sure > how well this kind of change is going to go down with the respective > architecture maintainers, though. Hmm, yeah, this is a mess, isn't it? Just about everything in PCI will need __devinit removed. We've been assuming that the only way for things to show up after init is via hotplug. But you're breaking that assumption by doing *all* enumeration after init. There are approximately a bajillion __init and __devinit annotations just in drivers/pci, not to mention those in the architectures. Well, maybe you just need to turn on CONFIG_HOTPLUG. How would that affect you? I think we would still have to change some __inits to __devinit, including pcibios_update_irq(), but it might be more manageable. I started working on this, but it sounds like you're in a better position to find problems and test fixes, so how about if I just let you handle it? :) Bjorn
