On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:11:08 +0000 Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
?
> > The problem then is that the SET_*_PM_OPS macros are defined
> > differently according to CONFIG_PM, so their definition would need to
> > be changed to use the (redefined) pm_ptr() macro and a corresponding
> > pm_sleep_ptr() macro.
>
> Small question here. Why would these macros need to use pm_ptr() macro at all?
>
> Why not just stop them being conditional on CONFIG_PM at all and let dead
> code removal kill them off for us? You might want to do something different
> for the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP ones though if we care about having it that fine
> grained.
Agreed, there is no need to use pm_ptr() inside of the new macros, it would just
be convenient to define them this way.
The only requirement is to use a construct with the ?: operator that gets
evaluated at compile time based on CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
so that DCE can do its magic.
Arnd
