[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3=5uud3jd7N3FEAnaLapX-0OYaiscBFNEQm2hzkTmj7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:51:38 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wei WANG <wei_wang@...lsil.com.cn>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] misc: rtsx: fix build for CONFIG_PM not set
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 6:46 PM Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> wrote:
> Le dim., févr. 27 2022 at 18:30:16 +0100, Arnd Bergmann
>
> There could be a DEFINE_DEV_PM_OPS(), but I don't think that's really
> needed - you can very well declare your struct dev_pm_ops without using
> one of these macros. Just make sure to use the SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS /
> RUNTIME_PM_OPS macros for the callbacks and pm_ptr() for the device.pm
> pointer.
Ah, of course, so it comes down to
s/SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS/SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS/ while
removing all the #ifdef an __maybe_unused annotations. The pm_ptr()
in driver.pm makes this slightly more optimized AFAICT, but has no
effect on behavior, right?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists