Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

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...

-- 
Dmitry