Re: [PATCH RFC] introduce pm_call() macro to get rid of most #ifdef CONFIG_PM

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday, 3 of March 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 02:43:08 +0300
> Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Currently drivers handle CONFIG_PM this way:
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > drv_suspend() {}
> > drv_resume() {}
> > #else
> > #define drv_suspend NULL
> > #define drv_resume NULL
> > #endif
> > 
> > struct driver drv = {
> > 	.suspend = drv_suspend,
> > 	.resume = drv_resume,
> > };
> > 
> > With this patch, the code above converts into:
> > 
> > drv_suspend() {}
> > drv_resume() {}
> > 
> > struct driver drv = {
> > 	.suspend = pm_call(drv_suspend),
> > 	.resume = pm_call(drv_resume),
> > };
> > 
> > GCC will optimize away suspend/resume calls if they're really
> > not used.
> > 
> 
> 
> to be honest, at this point I would think it's time to remove CONFIG_PM, or rather,
> just make it always be there and just get rid of the ifdefs. We're saving 2 words and a bit of code,
> but only a case that not even the embedded guys use. 

All of the drivers' ->suspend() and ->resume() callbacks currently depend on
CONFIG_PM, which they shouldn't.

Still, we're going to introduce new callbacks for suspend/hibernation and the
$subject change will probably get us in the way.  Also, it won't be necessary
afterwards.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/