Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <a99e0316d831dcf0c81060fb977f7147704b6742.camel@v3.sk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] x86: olpc: fix section mismatch warning
From:   Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 07 May 2019 09:50:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLawPdSa-c_a7EE_uyu2Oc=xvJKf3NgcTywcm6AY0CQ9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <76cbb7d3-bb91-4900-0275-a9b09fd7c77b@infradead.org>
         <CAL_JsqLawPdSa-c_a7EE_uyu2Oc=xvJKf3NgcTywcm6AY0CQ9w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1 (3.32.1-1.fc30) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 16:06 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Lubomir
> 
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:31 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> > 
> > Fix section mismatch warning:
> > 
> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x36e00): Section mismatch in reference from the function olpc_dt_compatible_match() to the function .init.text:olpc_dt_getproperty()
> > The function olpc_dt_compatible_match() references
> > the function __init olpc_dt_getproperty().
> > This is often because olpc_dt_compatible_match lacks a __init
> > annotation or the annotation of olpc_dt_getproperty is wrong.
> > 
> > All calls to olpc_dt_compatible_match() are from __init functions,
> > so it can be marked __init also.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> 
> Fixes: a7a9bacb9a32 ("x86/platform/olpc: Use a correct version when
> making up a battery node")
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Thanks for this. Which tree does this apply to? I can't see the patch
that introduce the problem in x86's for-next? I've a mostly equivalent
patch lined up with an intent to send it over to x86 once the faulty
commit reaches it:

https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2019-April/060269.html

In any case;

Reviewed-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk>

> -int olpc_dt_compatible_match(phandle node, const char *compat)
> +int __init olpc_dt_compatible_match(phandle node, const char *compat)

My patch also marks olpc_dt_compatible_match() static. It should still
be done if this one ends up being applied.

Lubo