Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

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

 



On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but some people seem very keen on removing the pointers to the PM
> > > ops entirely when CONFIG_PM is disabled which means that you end up with
> > > varying idioms for what you do with the PM ops as stuff gets ifdefed
> > > out.  Then again I'm not sure anything would make those people any
> > > happier.
> > 
> > I really think we should do things that makes sense rather that worry about
> > who's going to like or dislike it (except for Linus maybe, but he tends to like
> > things that make sense anyway).  At this point I think the change I suggested
> > makes sense, because it (a) simplifies things and (b) follows the quite common
> > practice which is to make PM callbacks depend on CONFIG_PM.
> 
> Many people make these callback dependent on PM not because it makes
> much sense but because it is possible to do so. However, aside of
> randconfig compile testing, nobody really tests drivers that implement
> PM in the !CONFIG_PM setting.

That I can agree with, but I'm not sure whether it is an argument against
the patch I've just posted or for it?

Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux