Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:02:46 +0900 > Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Alan Cox wrote: >>> Ughhhhhhhhh... >>> >>> Can we not just provide dummy methods ? >> I agree that it's ugly but LDDs often wrap standard routines and with >> the third patch all standard routines are gone thus forcing LLDs to omit >> PM functions if !CONFIG_PM. If we supply dummy core functions, forcing >> LLDs to skip private PM functions is difficult. > > If CONFIG_PM is not defined then they will not get called and they > generally wrap the functions that would become dummies ? > > Am I missing something ? The PM codes in LLDs would still be compiled and linked in. Some people (understandably) seem to be quite concerned about that. If we determine that's okay, we can kill CONFIG_PM's in all LLDs. -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
