On Thursday, May 09, 2013 02:31:46 PM Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > > The following patch series introduces a marker for power management functions > > > > and data. This this marker, #ifdef CONFIG_PM and #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > > > can be removed from most of the code. This ensures that the conditional code > > > > still compiles but is not included in the object file. > > > > > > > > As a side effect, drivers declaring struct dev_pm_ops unconditionally > > > > get a bit smaller if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not configured. > > > > > > What about code that depends on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME? Or code that > > > depends on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP but not on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME? > > > > > Should we also introduce __pm_sleep and __pm_runtime ? > > If you want to implement this correctly, I think you have to. > > As for whether the additional complication is desirable ... I'll leave > that up to Rafael to decide. Well, if that had been so easy to do, we would have done it already before. I think that we first should try to combine PM_SLEEP with PM_RUNTIME (plus some other power management options related to CPU PM) and then introduce something like __pm. Otherwise, it's going to be a mess. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
