Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code

[Alan Stern]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/