On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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? More of an observation for your (b) justification. I'd probably force CONFIG_PM to always 'y'w while we weeding references to it from drivers... -- Dmitry _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
