arm: omap1: fix section mismatch on clk_init()
PATCH 1/1 arm: omap1: fix section mismatch on clk_init()
Adding linux-omap to the loop.
Sorry, I had forgotten it.
Signature · 1 line
balbi
Hi Paul,
I thought you had fixed the section mismatch below, but for some reason it came up again. Attached is a patch to fix it:
WARNING: arch/arm/mach-omap1/built-in.o(.data+0x264): Section mismatch in reference from the variable omap1_clk_functions to the function .init.text:omap1_clk_disable_unused() The variable omap1_clk_functions references
the function __init omap1_clk_disable_unused()
If the reference is valid then annotate the
variable with __init* or __refdata (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
*driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console,
Signature · 1 line
balbi
Quoted 1 line
From
a3b069cca760276d5eb2905e27939edf08b92797Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:30:48 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] arm: omap1: clk: fix section mismatch on clk_init
remove the section annotation from omap1_clk_disable_unused() to kill the section mismatch warning.
--- arch/arm/mach-omap1/clock.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-omap1/clock.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-omap1/clock.c +1 -1
@@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ int omap1_clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)#ifdef CONFIG_OMAP_RESET_CLOCKS -void __init omap1_clk_disable_unused (struct clk *clk) +void omap1_clk_disable_unused (struct clk *clk) {__u32 regval32;
arch/arm/mach-omap1/clock.h +1 -1
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ extern long omap1_clk_round_rate_ckctl_arm(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate);extern unsigned long omap1_watchdog_recalc (struct clk *clk);#ifdef CONFIG_OMAP_RESET_CLOCKS -extern void __init omap1_clk_disable_unused (struct clk *clk); +extern void omap1_clk_disable_unused (struct clk *clk);#else #define omap1_clk_disable_unused NULL#endif
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.rc0.33.g7c3932
Paul Walmsley
maintainerQuoted 3 lines · Felipe Balbi
Adding linux-omap to the loop.
Sorry, I had forgotten it.
Thanks, queuing for 2.6.35.
By the way, it's much easier for most people (including myself) if you just inline your patch into the E-mail...
- Paul