From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] thermal: tango: add resume support Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:48:47 +0200 Message-ID: <5795E07F.6010506@free.fr> References: <57726196.5060909@free.fr> <5795CB4E.4000909@free.fr> <4062048.3qHsMMf8fO@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.4]:4259 "EHLO smtp4-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751127AbcGYJtK (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 05:49:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4062048.3qHsMMf8fO@wuerfel> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , Eduardo Valentin , Zhang Rui Cc: Kevin Hilman , linux-pm , Linux ARM , Sebastian Frias , Thierry Reding On 25/07/2016 10:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2016 10:18:22 AM CEST Mason wrote: > >> Moving the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS macro outside the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guard >> would unconditionally define a struct dev_pm_ops, which just wastes >> space when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is undefined (if I'm not mistaken). >> >> That's why I put SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS inside the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guard. > > If you want to avoid the extra few bytes, just use the trick I > suggested: > > .pm = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) ? &tango_thermal_pm : NULL, This would achieve the same result as the solution I proposed in my v2 patch, right? So you're saying you prefer the IS_ENABLED macro over using #ifdef ... #else define stuff as NULL #endif Did I get that right? Eduardo, Zhang, what do thermal maintainers prefer? > You should basically never have that #ifdef inside of the > platform_driver definition. Except when the fields don't exist, like the bug I introduced in struct smp_operations (which you fixed). Regards. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: slash.tmp@free.fr (Mason) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:48:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3] thermal: tango: add resume support In-Reply-To: <4062048.3qHsMMf8fO@wuerfel> References: <57726196.5060909@free.fr> <5795CB4E.4000909@free.fr> <4062048.3qHsMMf8fO@wuerfel> Message-ID: <5795E07F.6010506@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25/07/2016 10:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2016 10:18:22 AM CEST Mason wrote: > >> Moving the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS macro outside the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guard >> would unconditionally define a struct dev_pm_ops, which just wastes >> space when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is undefined (if I'm not mistaken). >> >> That's why I put SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS inside the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guard. > > If you want to avoid the extra few bytes, just use the trick I > suggested: > > .pm = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) ? &tango_thermal_pm : NULL, This would achieve the same result as the solution I proposed in my v2 patch, right? So you're saying you prefer the IS_ENABLED macro over using #ifdef ... #else define stuff as NULL #endif Did I get that right? Eduardo, Zhang, what do thermal maintainers prefer? > You should basically never have that #ifdef inside of the > platform_driver definition. Except when the fields don't exist, like the bug I introduced in struct smp_operations (which you fixed). Regards.