Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:48:11 -0700 | From | Nathan Chancellor <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: qcom-kryo: Fix section mismatch warning |
| |
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:45:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:54 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 19-09-18, 14:50, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 19-09-18, 14:45, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM Nathan Chancellor > > > > <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x8aa424): Section mismatch in reference from > > > > > the function qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe() to the function > > > > > .init.text:qcom_cpufreq_kryo_get_msm_id() > > > > > The function qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe() references > > > > > the function __init qcom_cpufreq_kryo_get_msm_id(). > > > > > This is often because qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe lacks a __init > > > > > annotation or the annotation of qcom_cpufreq_kryo_get_msm_id is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Add the '__init' annotation to qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe so that there is > > > > > no more mismatch warning. > > > > > > > > I wonder why this driver has an exit function marked __init rather > > > > than __exit? > > > > > > I think it was just a mistake. > > > > > > > Does that mean it gets cleaned up after kernel init, and > > > > so on unloading of the driver, the kernel jumps to unmapped memory? > > > > > > The __init/exit sections are only useful when the driver is builtin > > > and so there is no unloading. Yeah, if you would have tried to call > > > shutdown for the kernel, it may have crashed or something. I don't > > > know. > > > > > > > Does this patch now produce a warning for `qcom_cpufreq_kryo_driver` > > > > referencing `qcom_cpufreq_kryo_probe`? > > > > > > Why should it ? It doesn't though. > > > > I thought you replied to my commit where I marked the exit routine > > with __exit and realised just now that it wasn't the case. I haven't > > build-tested this thing, but the question still stands. Why should it > > ? > > Because __init things go away at one point and calling them from the > other sections is a bad idea. OTOH, __exit things are simply not > needed in built-in drivers and they are never there if the driver is > built-in, so calling them from the other sections is a bad idea too. > > Can you guys, please, prepare *one* patch fixing all of the > __init/__exit annotations in this driver and post it? > > Thanks, > Rafael
Hi Rafael,
Yes, I will work on this and send out a v3 for review.
Thanks, Nathan
| |