On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:30:21AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 5/6/21 9:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:36:14PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

> > I was thinking it'd be good to do this by modifying SYM_CODE_START() to
> > emit the section, that way nobody can forget to put any SYM_CODE into a
> > special section.  That does mean we'd have to first introduce a new

> OK. I could make the section an argument to SYM_CODE*() so that a developer
> will never miss that. Some documentation may be in order so the guidelines
> are clear. I will do the doc patch separately, if that is alright with
> you all.

I was thinking to have standard SYM_CODE default to a section then a
variant for anything that cares (like how we have SYM_FUNC_PI and
friends for the PI code for EFI).

> > We also have a bunch of things like __cpu_soft_restart which don't seem
> > to be called out here but need to be in .idmap.text.

> It is already in .idmap.text.

Right, I meant that I was expecting to see things that need to be in a
specific section other than .code.text called out separately here if
we're enumerating them.  Though if the annotations are done separately
then this patch wouldn't need to do that calling out at all, it'd be
covered as part of fiddling around with the annotations.