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. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
