From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:48:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20130509174822.GA30549@roeck-us.net> References: <1368119366-8716-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Jean Delvare , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Jingoo Han List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 ? Thanks, Guenter