Re: [PATCH 0/5] Rework pm_ptr() and *_PM_OPS macros

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 6:17 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 16:07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:22 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 1:20 AM Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patchset reworks the pm_ptr() macro I introduced a few versions
> > > > ago, so that it is not conditionally defined.
> > > >
> > > > It applies the same treatment to the *_PM_OPS macros. Instead of
> > > > modifying the existing ones, which would mean a 2000+ patch bomb, this
> > > > patchset introduce two new macros to replace the now deprecated
> > > > UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS() and SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS().
> > > >
> > > > The point of all of this, is to progressively switch from a code model
> > > > where PM callbacks are all protected behind CONFIG_PM guards, to a code
> > > > model where PM callbacks are always seen by the compiler, but discarded
> > > > if not used.
> > > >
> > > > Patch [4/5] and [5/5] are just examples to illustrate the use of the new
> > > > macros. As such they don't really have to be merged at the same time as
> > > > the rest and can be delayed until a subsystem-wide patchset is proposed.
> > > >
> > > > - Patch [4/5] modifies a driver that already used the pm_ptr() macro,
> > > >   but had to use the __maybe_unused flag to avoid compiler warnings;
> > > > - Patch [5/5] modifies a driver that used a #ifdef CONFIG_PM guard
> > > >   around its suspend/resume functions.
> > >
> > > This is fantastic, I love the new naming and it should provide a great path
> > > towards converting all drivers eventually. I've added the patches to
> > > my randconfig test build box to see if something breaks, but otherwise
> > > I think these are ready to get into linux-next, at least patches 1-3,
> > > so subsystem
> > > maintainers can start queuing up the conversion patches once the
> > > initial set is merged.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Patches [0-3/5] applied as 5.17 material.
> >
> > The mmc patches need ACKs, but I can take them too.
>
> Sure, please add my ack for them!

Both applied as 5.17 material with your ACKs, thanks!