On Sun, 16 May 2004, David Brownell wrote:
>
> More like this then? I'm not sure whether you'd prefer
> to apply that logic to the "struct pm_info" innards too.
> That file has multiple CONFIG_PM sections, too.
I was thinking just putting it in the existing wrapper sections.
We already have wrappers for pm_register, pm_unregister,
pm_unregister_all, pm_send, pm_send_all, etc etc, and this would seem to
be just one more case like that.
The alternative is to just always have "power_state" in the "dev_pm_info",
especially as some versions of gcc have had bugs with empty structures
anyway.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
