Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:48:22 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code
Message-ID: <20130509174822.GA30549@roeck-us.net>
References: <1368119366-8716-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1305091337050.1796-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1305091337050.1796-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 993
Lines: 23

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 ?

Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/