Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:33:22 +0300 | From | Jarkko Nikula <> | Subject | Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: rt5645: fix build warning |
| |
On 10/08/2015 11:55 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:05:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:52:12PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >>> We were getting build warning about "Section mismatch". >>> dmi_platform_intel_broadwell is being referenced from the probe function >>> rt5645_i2c_probe(), but dmi_platform_intel_broadwell was marked with >>> __initdata. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@vectorindia.org> >> >>> -static struct dmi_system_id dmi_platform_intel_broadwell[] __initdata = { >>> +static struct dmi_system_id dmi_platform_intel_broadwell[] = { >> >> This doesn't seem like the obvious fix - why are we not annotating the >> probe function suitably (or alternatively if we can't why does >> __initdata still exist)? > > probe function should not be __init. probe can be called anytime after > the module has been loaded. > __initdata still exists as that part of the code was added by > e9159e7577cf ("ASoC: rt5645: Add dmi for Broadwell") which is a very > recent modification and I think that has been added by mistake. > One more argument in my favor: > The use in probe function is > if (dmi_check_system(dmi_platform_intel_braswell) || > dmi_check_system(dmi_platform_intel_broadwell)) > > dmi_platform_intel_braswell is not marked as __initdata but > dmi_platform_intel_broadwell is marked but they both have same use at > the same place. > If one really wants to save a few bytes then one could annotate this it with __initdata_or_module (very low use in kernel) but I don't think it's worth of effort and probably should be done for other sections here too by another patch.
To me this patch looks a right thing to do at the moment.
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
| |