From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: spear-keyboard - Add CONFIG_PM_SLEEP to suspend/resume functions Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:08:41 -0700 Message-ID: <71CA30BA-E2BE-45D3-9FA8-6E1E9B1284A9@gmail.com> References: <000801cff1e2$2427ba40$6c772ec0$%han@samsung.com> <20141027233744.GC7594@dtor-ws> <000001cff242$80476680$80d63380$%han@samsung.com> <20141028001100.GF7594@dtor-ws> <000701cff249$a700dde0$f50299a0$%han@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:33319 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752658AbaJ1BIs (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:08:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id lj1so2449335pab.36 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:08:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <000701cff249$a700dde0$f50299a0$%han@samsung.com> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, 'Viresh Kumar' , 'Jingoo Han' On October 27, 2014 5:53:56 PM PDT, Jingoo Han wrote: >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:11 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:02:44AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >> > On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:32:58PM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >> > > > Add CONFIG_PM_SLEEP to suspend/resume functions >> > > > >> > > > Add CONFIG_PM_SLEEP to suspend/resume functions instead of >> > > > CONFIG_PM to fix the following build warning when >CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >> > > > is not selected and CONFIG_PM is selected. This is because >sleep >> > > > PM callbacks defined by SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS are only used when >the >> > > > CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is enabled. >> > > >> > > Recently I've become a fan of __maybe_unused markings as they >insulate >> > > us from various CONFIG changes in unrelated subsystems, I'll >transform >> > > this patch to use them instead. >> > >> > OK, I see. I have no objection. >> > Then, how about changing other usages of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP/CONFIG_PM >> > to __maybe_unused annotation? Personally, I prefer to increase >build >> > coverage than using #ifdef guards. Someone, however, argued that >#ifdef >> > guards should be used in this case because the size of binary can >be >> > reduced. How about your opinion? >> >> The optimizer is supposed to drop functions marked as >'__maybe_unused' >> if they are indeed unused so size of the binary should not change. > >Sorry for annoying you. >I built 'spear-keyboard' and got the binaries as below. > >spear-keyboard.o 89500 bytes, <-- CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n >spear-keyboard.o 92352 bytes, <-- CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y >spear-keyboard.o 92352 bytes, <-- Marked as __maybe_unused > >As presented above, when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is used instead of >__maybe_unused, the size of binary is reduced. So, someone >complained me to use #ifdef guards. But, I agree with your >opinion. Personally, I DON'T want to use #ifdef guards, >because I prefer to increase build coverage. What about the final kernel image size/kernel module size? Thanks. -- Dmitry