On 27 February 2014 16:04, Alan Stern [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

quoted

So the main question from v1 remains: why use a macro, and not a function?

I am no big fan of macros, but in this case I thought it make sense.
Using _a_ function would not be enough, since we would need three, one
for each runtime PM callback (suspend, idle, resume), right?

I am happy to change to whatever you guys thinks best, I have no strong opinion.

A reasonable compromise would be to define the macro, and then use it
in those three new functions (and nowhere else).

Okay, let me send a v3 that tries this approach then.

The existing rpm_idle, rpm_suspend, and rpm_resume routines should then
be changed to use the new functions.  And of course, the new functions
could be called directly by subsystems or PM domains.

Not sure we should export these functions as a part of this patchset.
Would it not be preferred, to first see if there are any that needs
it?

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson

Alan Stern