On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 06:44:27PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/neponset.c b/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/neponset.c
> index d7c038a..17ebdc4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/neponset.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/neponset.c
> @@ -139,12 +139,12 @@ static u_int neponset_get_mctrl(struct uart_port *port)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static struct sa1100_port_fns neponset_port_fns __initdata = {
> +static struct sa1100_port_fns neponset_port_fns __devinitdata = {
> .set_mctrl = neponset_set_mctrl,
> .get_mctrl = neponset_get_mctrl,
> };
>
> -static int neponset_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static int __devinit neponset_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
> {
> sa1100_register_uart_fns(&neponset_port_fns);
>
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static struct platform_device *devices[] __initdata = {
> &smc91x_device,
> };
>
> -static int __init neponset_init(void)
> +static int __devinit neponset_init(void)
> {
> platform_driver_register(&neponset_device_driver);
>
How can this hunk be correct? neponset_init() is only called from
subsys_initcall() - it's not something we want to keep at init time.
I'm afraid I suspect faulty section analysis.
Given that (in the other messages) that there's other problems with
the warnings being generated, I'm reluctant to apply this off-hand.
I feel that the patch need quite careful review to make sure that
we're not introducing incorrect stuff such as the above.
I'll try and commit some of these changes this week though.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
