Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 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.

Wouldn't quite work without moving "struct pm_info" up higher
in the file.  Seems like that stuff still isn't fully sorted
out yet, this may not be the best time to start.


> 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.

That sounds like a much simpler fix.

- Dave