Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

[Larry Finger]

On 12/28/2012 05:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote:
> > Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to
> > separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file
> > (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module
> > named cpufreq_governor is created. It seems that kmake is smart enough to create
> > a separate module whenever more than one module includes the same object file.
> > As drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c contains no MODULE directives, the
> > resulting module has no license specified, which results in logging of a "module
> > license 'unspecified' taints kernel". In addition, a number of globals are
> > exported GPL only, and are therefore not available.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > This particular patch is the simplest possible; however, it hides the intent. I
> > have prepared the longer version that makes the reason clearer by adding a new
> > configuration variable that is dependent on the other two, and rearranges
> > drivers/cpufreq/Makefile. That version could be submitted if that is what is
> > desired.
>
> Yes, please.

I'll send it shortly.

> > The changes to cpufreq_governor.c are the same as in this version.
>
> I wonder if that's avoidable?  The intention is not to create an additional
> module, clearly.

It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to understand 
why it is forcing a new module. Perhaps some expert knows what Kconfig or 
Makefile magic will prevent that.

Larry



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/