[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1728768.gTkBc2iT1V@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 21:15 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 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 Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:09:23 AM 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.
>
> The first patch in the series introduces the marker, the following
> two patches introduce the marker in two drivers to demonstrate its use.
>
> The patch series depends on the "PM: Add pm_ops_ptr() macro" patch
> submitted by Jingoo Han.
What about CCing a PM core maintainer?
Please see my reply to Alan Stern for my opinion.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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