From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD18AC433E0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8407D20781 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="xuN4qX3c" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726528AbgHKUDE (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:03:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45888 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726271AbgHKUDD (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:03:03 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x243.google.com (mail-oi1-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::243]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 268F0C061787 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x243.google.com with SMTP id b22so13397379oic.8 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/L5XEoeU6SfSw+3MAGdjCZdmWhATe3RdZadKI67cXZo=; b=xuN4qX3cNWgNZIkfenGKniMbJgU7TWaqGefaAdIjgLuz82L5ys44wwFfm/lbiuAeqp 4VNghtvxbMCCekrVw0BRCBmXO9EaCB87qMJrh1o012IFDkTI98U+tXoJihtWFJ+jfWUA EY6iMFHKCFRaJylHUFxYYoEEUfwAhTVukp+ihgaa/4iNizF25DEGM/0sOVpOR71L6uTF sqJxHU3UJoHadr/CQTgQJSYvd8hjuGu59uFWF0Z7gd2Q7UgZLCloetJljvx5SDVBx8Ak oRoLdr3njf+UyhcXOp9HMgJxsWrn9XeFLZRP57ixcuHAtf30QAU/ljV84hWWf5+COulF L+ig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/L5XEoeU6SfSw+3MAGdjCZdmWhATe3RdZadKI67cXZo=; b=hzT1KB0jrQg4FMHBW6+2x5tbZpeZPQI9RyAEWTl0Lt43Et/zSrJ2Zc4zVcyCDNEX2Q b2Rtp5sTeBv1QaeeeEQx/TkE4o3UAmwgxsGyEQi4sL19PMdUAfirobWTPA5bAy/1txBx 5ckyre901H7HDTxmU12qrWCUPZGkIYslq1GNpu+2rbiBVWWq6XBofYVojgAiNL4bOgYV CiTPNTcuT9jwqyC6XTyImzCqBfzCopGUceYMJoBWyjkQMPIKFpTcBGb2OHCdUL5JYXlC RkR6Q66np3m74M2LOtmdNLPrFp84QNzljfdUexdDigWn0WsdO+w5vyvrwgwunlgnNtBK LzxA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335k/FYMQ7mQh7r3ZNyxGBXFYcS+gVj4eUNyRmtqS/IWv6qqGft QL/nUssaGUrwWJ8wHaHr4rjrD3sFs8oRItzRUbzDlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUnhWji9+O9FsKo96nRE2LnEz6aMDJgYGbDEg7BsXVRFWBFXMET8NIbAlW54wWzH2BYtM26yo4Bx/x2QiRfLI= X-Received: by 2002:aca:b50b:: with SMTP id e11mr5131759oif.10.1597176182150; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:03:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200811025044.70626-1-john.stultz@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: From: John Stultz Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:02:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Drop __init from qcom_geni_console_setup To: Saravana Kannan Cc: lkml , Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , Todd Kjos , Amit Pundir , linux-arm-msm , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:00 AM Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 7:50 PM John Stultz wrote: > > > > When booting with heavily modularized config, the serial console > > may not be able to load until after init when modules that > > satisfy needed dependencies have time to load. > > > > Unfortunately, as qcom_geni_console_setup is marked as __init, > > the function may have been freed before we get to run it, > > causing boot time crashes such as: > > Btw, I thought non-__init functions calling __init functions would be > caught by the build system. Is that not correct? If it's correct, do > we know how this gets past that check? I think it's because it's indirectly called through a function pointer. thanks -john