Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct: Revert commits causing section mismatches

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 25/07/2025 11:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/07/2025 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 25/07/2025 11:28, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > On 25/07/2025 11:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > Commit 5d86e479193b ("clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct: Add module
> > > > support") introduced section mismatch failures.
> > > > Commit 7e477e9c4eb4 ("clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct: Fix section
> > > > mismatch from the module conversion") replaced these to other section
> > > > mismatch failures:
> > > >
> > > >     WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: mct_init_dt+0x164 (section: .text) -> register_current_timer_delay (section: .init.text)
> > > >     WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: mct_init_dt+0x20c (section: .text) -> register_current_timer_delay (section: .init.text)
> > > >     ERROR: modpost: Section mismatches detected.
> > > >
> > > > No progress on real fixing of these happened (intermediary fix was still
> > > > not tested), so revert both commits till the work is prepared correctly.
> > >
> > > Please don't claim the fix was not tested. I reproduced the section
> >
> >
> > section mismatch code MUST BE tested with enabled DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH
> > and disabled SECTION_MISMATCH_WARN_ONLY. If you have warnings which you
> > missed (although if you have warnings what did you fix?), means you did
> > not prepare testing setup.
> >
> > > mismatch, tested it and figured out it was indeed fixing the issue. I
> > > just missed the error because it sounds very close to the first one
> > > reported initially and I did the confusion.
> > >
> > > The driver is not supposed to be compiled as a module on ARM32.
> > >
> > > The option tristate "Exynos multi core timer driver" if ARM64 is
> > > misleading. From this change, the defconfig on ARM can do
> > > CONFIG_EXYNOS_MCT=m which should not be allowed.
> > >
> > > Before getting wild and revert everything, let's try to find a proper
> > > fix for that.
> >
> > I am not wild here. The issue is there since 9 days.
> BTW, merge window will start anytime soon, so if you do not apply this
> revert and do not fix it soon, it means NOTHING during merge window will
> be tested on Exynos.
>
> Why?
>
> Because my builds for Exynos rely on correct sections and they fail.
> Failed builds means: no boots.
>
> No boots means no testing.
>
> And if this reaches rc1 (imagine you send fixes AFTER rc1), then all my
> branches will be non-booting as well.
>
> Time to "not be wild" was 9 days ago when you received reply from Arnd.
> Now reverting these is the appropriate step. None of this work was
> tested on arm32 Exynos, BTW.

Yes, indeed. Fair enough.

Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>


--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog