[PATCH] omap2+: pm: Fix section mismatch in pm_dbg_init()

[Kevin Hilman]

Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:09:39PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Sanjeev Premi <premi at ti.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Fix the section mismatch warning:
>> >
>> >   WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21118): Section mismatch
>> >   in reference from the function pm_dbg_init() to the
>> >   function .init.text:pwrdms_setup()
>> >   The function pm_dbg_init() references
>> >   the function __init pwrdms_setup().
>> >   This is often because pm_dbg_init lacks a __init
>> >   annotation or the annotation of pwrdms_setup is wrong.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi at ti.com>
>> > ---
>> >  Applies to current linux-omap master
>> 
>> A previous commit just removed the __init annotation here because of a
>> different conflict with the regset init.   The regset code is now
>> removed in my queue for 3.1, so this patch is fine on top of that
>> series.
>> 
>> Queueing for v3.1 (branch: for_3.1/pm-misc)
>
> Sigh.  Please put some thought into it first and stop applying patches
> without first doing some analysis and test-buliding the thing.  Otherwise
> you're going to be applying patches for ever which add and delete
> these things.
>
> If you make pm_dbg_init() __init, then you also have to make
> pm_dbg_regset_init() __init too.  What about the callers to
> pm_dbg_regset_init() - are these marked __init or not?  If not,
> they too will have to be marked __init, etc.
>
> If that's not possible, then the __init attribute must be deleted
> from pwrdms_setup().

As I mentioned above, the regset code (pm_dbg_regset_*) is being removed
in a pending series I already have queued.

Thus, adding back the __init here is fine.  

It was thought about and test built.

Kevin