On 11/22/2010 8:16 AM, Mansoor, Illyas wrote:
Hi Arjan,
Please find the patch that fixes this, thanks.
From 0fa3f051da35f148605a29ca5cc15eac33c08697 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Illyas Mansoor<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:43:01 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] fix for section mismatch warnings
sfi_processor_register_performance() was not
annotated with __init fixed this.
it's customary to put the actual compiler warning in the description if
you're fixing one...
Signed-off-by: Illyas Mansoor<[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/sfi-cpufreq.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/sfi-cpufreq.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/sfi-cpufreq.c
index 11d1438..390ff3f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/sfi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/sfi-cpufreq.c
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static struct sfi_cpu_table_entry sfi_cpu_array[SFI_CPU_MAX];
/* sfi_perf_data is a pointer to percpu data. */
static struct sfi_processor_performance *sfi_perf_data;
-static struct cpufreq_driver sfi_cpufreq_driver;
+static struct cpufreq_driver sfi_cpufreq_driver_ops;
what is this seemingly gratuitous change for???
It's 90% of your patch, but it's not even described in your description.
static unsigned int sfi_pstate_strict;
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ void set_cpu_to_gfm(void)
wrmsr(MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL, l, h);
}
-int
+int __init
sfi_processor_register_performance(struct sfi_processor_performance
*performance, unsigned int cpu)
{
this part I can understand.... that should fix the warning.
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-kernel
