Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, but some people seem very keen on removing the pointers to the PM
> > > > ops entirely when CONFIG_PM is disabled which means that you end up with
> > > > varying idioms for what you do with the PM ops as stuff gets ifdefed
> > > > out.  Then again I'm not sure anything would make those people any
> > > > happier.
> > > 
> > > I really think we should do things that makes sense rather that worry about
> > > who's going to like or dislike it (except for Linus maybe, but he tends to like
> > > things that make sense anyway).  At this point I think the change I suggested
> > > makes sense, because it (a) simplifies things and (b) follows the quite common
> > > practice which is to make PM callbacks depend on CONFIG_PM.
> > 
> > Many people make these callback dependent on PM not because it makes
> > much sense but because it is possible to do so. However, aside of
> > randconfig compile testing, nobody really tests drivers that implement
> > PM in the !CONFIG_PM setting.
> 
> That I can agree with, but I'm not sure whether it is an argument against
> the patch I've just posted or for it?

More of an observation for your (b) justification. I'd probably force
CONFIG_PM to always 'y'w while we weeding references to it from
drivers...

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/