On Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:56:45 PM Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:23:11AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > Add pm_ops_ptr() macro that allows the .pm entry in the driver structures
> > > > to be assigned without having an #define xxx NULL for the case that PM is
> > > > not enabled.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > I've queued this up as v3.11 material.
> >
> > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
> > > > @@ -1218,7 +1218,6 @@ static int s3c24xx_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > > }
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > > > static const struct dev_pm_ops s3c24xx_i2c_dev_pm_ops = {
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > > .suspend_noirq = s3c24xx_i2c_suspend_noirq,
> > > > @@ -1226,11 +1225,6 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops s3c24xx_i2c_dev_pm_ops = {
> > > > #endif
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > -#define S3C24XX_DEV_PM_OPS (&s3c24xx_i2c_dev_pm_ops)
> > > > -#else
> > > > -#define S3C24XX_DEV_PM_OPS NULL
> > > > -#endif
> > > > -
> > > > /* device driver for platform bus bits */
> >
> > Will not this enlarge .data by sizeof(struct dev_pm_ops)?
>
> Same question here. Is it the preferred way now to use this new macro
> although having the cost of having an empty dev_pm_ops?
No, it isn't, but if someone wants to use it, I don't really care that much.
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-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
