[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1305091426070.1796-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 14:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<lm-sensors@...sensors.org>, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >
> > > The following patch series introduces a marker for power management functions
> > > and data. This this marker, #ifdef CONFIG_PM and #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > can be removed from most of the code. This ensures that the conditional code
> > > still compiles but is not included in the object file.
> > >
> > > As a side effect, drivers declaring struct dev_pm_ops unconditionally
> > > get a bit smaller if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not configured.
> >
> > What about code that depends on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME? Or code that
> > depends on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP but not on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME?
> >
> Should we also introduce __pm_sleep and __pm_runtime ?
If you want to implement this correctly, I think you have to.
As for whether the additional complication is desirable ... I'll leave
that up to Rafael to decide.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists