On Thu, 8 May 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> Should we not depend on PM_RUNTIME only? Thus we don't need the new > >> Kconfig, > > > > Well, OK. I guess we can tolerate one useless statement in rpm_resume() > > in case CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is unset. It isn't a big deal. However, Ulf, you need to understand that this API belongs to _both_ PM_SLEEP _and_ PM_RUNTIME. It doesn't mean anything unless both are present. But as Rafael said, the extra overhead if !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is minimal. (Although I would move the new flag to be next to the other bitflags, so that it doesn't add an entire extra word to the dev_pm_info structure.) > >> and then we could rename the new APIs to pm_runtime_* instead. > > > > That would just make the name longer - for what value? > > Only "__set_leave_runtime_suspended" will be a bit longer. > > The idea I had was to clearly indicate, these functions is a part of > PM_RUNTIME API. Not so. They are part of both PM_SLEEP and PM_RUNTIME, which means they are really just part of PM. You can tell by the fact that they are used in both main.c and runtime.c. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
