Ben Dooks wrote: > How about adding a Kconfig for any architectures interested in defining > it to declare that they do not want a generic version, or some form of > default include that could be used to support archs where this is not > defined? > > This i san awful lot of nothing header addition. > I'm ok with a Kconfig option if that is preferred, but personally I prefer minimizing Kconfig space. Thanks for the comments, Kevin _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
