The commit:
platform driver: fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' with 'struct device_driver'
contains this:
-static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct device *dev)
+static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
...
- .remove = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
+ .remove = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
which leads to the following build error:
`pxa2xx_flash_remove' referenced in section `.data' of drivers/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/built-in.o
This is not the only instance of it in this patch - all __exit_p's
touched by this patch have been converted to __devexit_p's without
regard to the original function.
Let's revert this change and, if we are going to convert functions
to be __devexit/__devinit, lets have that as a _separate_ patch doing
just that change.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <[email protected]>
---
arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c | 2 +-
drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c | 2 +-
drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c | 3 +--
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c b/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c
index dfbfd7e..2ab56ea 100644
--- a/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c
+++ b/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static struct platform_driver iodev_driver = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
},
.probe = iodev_probe,
- .remove = __devexit_p(iodev_remove),
+ .remove = __exit_p(iodev_remove),
};
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c b/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c
index e9026cb..bf933a9 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static struct platform_driver pxa2xx_flash_driver = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
},
.probe = pxa2xx_flash_probe,
- .remove = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
+ .remove = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
.suspend = pxa2xx_flash_suspend,
.resume = pxa2xx_flash_resume,
.shutdown = pxa2xx_flash_shutdown,
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c
index 72446fb..630b4d6 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static struct platform_driver excite_nand_driver = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
},
.probe = excite_nand_probe,
- .remove = __devexit_p(excite_nand_remove)
+ .remove = __exit_p(excite_nand_remove)
};
static int __init excite_nand_init(void)
--
Russell King
Ping?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:00:49PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> The commit:
>
> platform driver: fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' with 'struct device_driver'
>
> contains this:
>
> -static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct device *dev)
> +static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> ...
> - .remove = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
> + .remove = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
>
> which leads to the following build error:
>
> `pxa2xx_flash_remove' referenced in section `.data' of drivers/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/built-in.o
>
> This is not the only instance of it in this patch - all __exit_p's
> touched by this patch have been converted to __devexit_p's without
> regard to the original function.
>
> Let's revert this change and, if we are going to convert functions
> to be __devexit/__devinit, lets have that as a _separate_ patch doing
> just that change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c | 2 +-
> drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c | 2 +-
> drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c | 3 +--
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c b/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c
> index dfbfd7e..2ab56ea 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/basler/excite/excite_iodev.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static struct platform_driver iodev_driver = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> },
> .probe = iodev_probe,
> - .remove = __devexit_p(iodev_remove),
> + .remove = __exit_p(iodev_remove),
> };
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c b/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c
> index e9026cb..bf933a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/maps/pxa2xx-flash.c
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static struct platform_driver pxa2xx_flash_driver = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> },
> .probe = pxa2xx_flash_probe,
> - .remove = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
> + .remove = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
> .suspend = pxa2xx_flash_suspend,
> .resume = pxa2xx_flash_resume,
> .shutdown = pxa2xx_flash_shutdown,
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c
> index 72446fb..630b4d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/excite_nandflash.c
> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static struct platform_driver excite_nand_driver = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> },
> .probe = excite_nand_probe,
> - .remove = __devexit_p(excite_nand_remove)
> + .remove = __exit_p(excite_nand_remove)
> };
>
> static int __init excite_nand_init(void)
>
>
> --
> Russell King
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:00:49PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> The commit:
>
> platform driver: fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' with 'struct device_driver'
>
> contains this:
>
> -static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct device *dev)
> +static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> ...
> - .remove = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
> + .remove = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
>
> which leads to the following build error:
>
> `pxa2xx_flash_remove' referenced in section `.data' of drivers/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/built-in.o
>
> This is not the only instance of it in this patch - all __exit_p's
> touched by this patch have been converted to __devexit_p's without
> regard to the original function.
>
> Let's revert this change and, if we are going to convert functions
> to be __devexit/__devinit, lets have that as a _separate_ patch doing
> just that change.
Ick, Ming, any thoughts? I'll revert your patch as it looks like it is
incorrect in this way.
thanks,
greg k-h
2009/4/4 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:00:49PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
>> The commit:
>>
>> ? ? platform driver: fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' with 'struct device_driver'
>>
>> contains this:
>>
>> -static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct device *dev)
>> +static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
>> ...
>> - ? ? ? .remove ? ? ? ? = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
>> + ? ? ? .remove ? ? ? ? = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
>>
>> which leads to the following build error:
>>
>> `pxa2xx_flash_remove' referenced in section `.data' of drivers/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/built-in.o
>>
>> This is not the only instance of it in this patch - all __exit_p's
>> touched by this patch have been converted to __devexit_p's without
>> regard to the original function.
>>
>> Let's revert this change and, if we are going to convert functions
>> to be __devexit/__devinit, lets have that as a _separate_ patch doing
>> just that change.
>
> Ick, Ming, any thoughts? ?I'll revert your patch as it looks like it is
> incorrect in this way.
OK, revert the patch ,please.
I'll resend a patch to fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' ,
which does not touch
__exit_p.
Thanks!
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
Lei Ming
Note that since I was sending a new set of ARM fixes a couple of days
ago and there didn't seem to be anyone listening to my emails, I fixed
the PXA flash driver myself. Linus now has that fix.
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 03:18:04PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> 2009/4/4 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:00:49PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> >> The commit:
> >>
> >> ? ? platform driver: fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' with 'struct device_driver'
> >>
> >> contains this:
> >>
> >> -static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct device *dev)
> >> +static int __exit pxa2xx_flash_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> >> ...
> >> - ? ? ? .remove ? ? ? ? = __exit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
> >> + ? ? ? .remove ? ? ? ? = __devexit_p(pxa2xx_flash_remove),
> >>
> >> which leads to the following build error:
> >>
> >> `pxa2xx_flash_remove' referenced in section `.data' of drivers/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/built-in.o
> >>
> >> This is not the only instance of it in this patch - all __exit_p's
> >> touched by this patch have been converted to __devexit_p's without
> >> regard to the original function.
> >>
> >> Let's revert this change and, if we are going to convert functions
> >> to be __devexit/__devinit, lets have that as a _separate_ patch doing
> >> just that change.
> >
> > Ick, Ming, any thoughts? ?I'll revert your patch as it looks like it is
> > incorrect in this way.
>
> OK, revert the patch ,please.
> I'll resend a patch to fix incorrect use of 'platform_bus_type' ,
> which does not touch
> __exit_p.
>
> Thanks!
>
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lei Ming
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 10:44:53AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Note that since I was sending a new set of ARM fixes a couple of days
> ago and there didn't seem to be anyone listening to my emails, I fixed
> the PXA flash driver myself. Linus now has that fix.
Sorry, I was out of the country for a week.
So, we don't need to revert the original change now?
Again, sorry for the delay.
greg k-h
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:08:51AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 10:44:53AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > Note that since I was sending a new set of ARM fixes a couple of days
> > ago and there didn't seem to be anyone listening to my emails, I fixed
> > the PXA flash driver myself. Linus now has that fix.
>
> Sorry, I was out of the country for a week.
>
> So, we don't need to revert the original change now?
Well, I didn't apply the non-ARM bits of the patch. So the way forward is
to either revert both mine and the original patch and apply a new one (which
means a total of three commits) or just apply the remainder of my patch I
sent at the top of this thread.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: