From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:23:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20110207222350.GA24804@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1297081335-13631-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201102072215.59921.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110207214732.GA24703@core.coreip.homeip.net> <201102072300.03986.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=bTcWYYybLIboOChy0icBsnUEFMYLX3aVH6LA7bux6UI=; b=I0BLlsTmX/w7dmGq17u5IqoLtm+nPW+AJphPrabPKj+ihR+0yhBlkA5bFEwe3mwc05 h2vPeD8DSRctFYLSzKBnHf0gNRrZ4/8PNZ+1TL8XsJWe0viELXLeoOG3AEJ9ij6DATO7 E5y/F+/T9KklwbqU8zQzvoMIn+3uKGpO2RD2I= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201102072300.03986.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Mark Brown , Len Brown , Alan Stern , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah, but some people seem very keen on removing the pointers to the PM > > > > ops entirely when CONFIG_PM is disabled which means that you end up with > > > > varying idioms for what you do with the PM ops as stuff gets ifdefed > > > > out. Then again I'm not sure anything would make those people any > > > > happier. > > > > > > I really think we should do things that makes sense rather that worry about > > > who's going to like or dislike it (except for Linus maybe, but he tends to like > > > things that make sense anyway). At this point I think the change I suggested > > > makes sense, because it (a) simplifies things and (b) follows the quite common > > > practice which is to make PM callbacks depend on CONFIG_PM. > > > > Many people make these callback dependent on PM not because it makes > > much sense but because it is possible to do so. However, aside of > > randconfig compile testing, nobody really tests drivers that implement > > PM in the !CONFIG_PM setting. > > That I can agree with, but I'm not sure whether it is an argument against > the patch I've just posted or for it? More of an observation for your (b) justification. I'd probably force CONFIG_PM to always 'y'w while we weeding references to it from drivers... -- Dmitry