On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:41 +0100, Christian Engelmayer <cenge...@gmx.at> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:10:53 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt > <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 19:38 +0100, Christian Engelmayer wrote: > > > Moved arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c : smp_mpic_probe() out of the __init > > > section. > > > It is referenced by arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c : > > > smp_85xx_setup_cpu(). > > > > I don't like this. The reference is not actually going to call into the > > code at all and as such is not an error, it's just a pointer comparison. > > That's correct. I proposed it that way because on first sight I was concerned > that there is an address of an __init function assigned to a function pointer > within a non __initdata struct at all that can be compared against. However, > further usage of smp_ops->probe is currently safe of course and *_ops symbols > within .data are whitelisted to refer to init sections. > > > If there is no way to silence the warning, then I'd suggest to use a > > global flag, something like mpc85xx_pic_type and test that instead > > of comparing the pointers. > > I've seen that there is currently a patch proposed against > > commit dc2c9c52b604f51b1416ed87ff54a1c77a1a8b5b > powerpc/85xx: Set up doorbells even with no mpic > > that introduced the section causing the warning: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/289214/ > powerpc/85xx: don't init the mpic ipi for the SoC which has doorbell > support > > This patch also removes the affected pointer comparison and if accepted would > thus also silence this warning.
Kevin's change (powerpc/85xx: don't init the mpic ipi for the SoC which has doorbell support) entered mainline by merge 1b17366d. I verified that the issue is thereby solved and my patch obsolete. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/301402/ Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
