Re: [PATCH] Input: spear-keyboard - Add CONFIG_PM_SLEEP to suspend/resume functions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On October 27, 2014 5:53:56 PM PDT, Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:11 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:02:44AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:32:58PM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
>> > > > Add CONFIG_PM_SLEEP to suspend/resume functions
>> > > >
>> > > > Add CONFIG_PM_SLEEP to suspend/resume functions instead of
>> > > > CONFIG_PM to fix the following build warning when
>CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> > > > is not selected and CONFIG_PM is selected. This is because
>sleep
>> > > > PM callbacks defined by SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS are only used when
>the
>> > > > CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is enabled.
>> > >
>> > > Recently I've become a fan of __maybe_unused markings as they
>insulate
>> > > us from various CONFIG changes in unrelated subsystems, I'll
>transform
>> > > this patch to use them instead.
>> >
>> > OK, I see. I have no objection.
>> > Then, how about changing other usages of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP/CONFIG_PM
>> > to __maybe_unused annotation? Personally, I prefer to increase
>build
>> > coverage than using #ifdef guards. Someone, however, argued that
>#ifdef
>> > guards should be used in this case because the size of binary can
>be
>> > reduced. How about your opinion?
>> 
>> The optimizer is supposed to drop functions marked as
>'__maybe_unused'
>> if they are indeed unused so size of the binary should not change.
>
>Sorry for annoying you.
>I built 'spear-keyboard' and got the binaries as below.
>
>spear-keyboard.o 89500 bytes, <-- CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n
>spear-keyboard.o 92352 bytes, <-- CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y
>spear-keyboard.o 92352 bytes, <-- Marked as __maybe_unused
>
>As presented above, when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is used instead of
>__maybe_unused, the size of binary is reduced. So, someone
>complained me to use #ifdef guards. But, I agree with your
>opinion. Personally, I DON'T want to use #ifdef guards,
>because I prefer to increase build coverage.

What about the final kernel image size/kernel module size?


Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Omap]

  Powered by Linux