Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752304Ab3EITER (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 May 2013 15:04:17 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:41451 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751844Ab3EITEQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 May 2013 15:04:16 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern , Guenter Roeck Cc: Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Jean Delvare , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Jingoo Han Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 21:12:40 +0200 Message-ID: <7892029.RG9lO6NoN5@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1701 Lines: 42 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. -- 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/