From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 00:05:40 +0100 Message-ID: <201102080005.40448.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1297081335-13631-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201102072300.03986.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110207222350.GA24804@core.coreip.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110207222350.GA24804@core.coreip.homeip.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Len Brown , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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... We simply can't force CONFIG_PM to 'y', because some platforms want it to be 'n'. OTOH, if CONFIG_PM = CONFIG_PM_SLEEP||CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, we can just leave the #ifdefs as they are and simply avoid adding new ones, or use CONFIG_PM for all PM callbacks. Thanks, Rafael