lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal/core: Fix thermal trip cross point
From
On 12/07/2022 13:29, Lukasz Luba wrote:

[ ... ]

>> @@ -511,8 +528,13 @@ void thermal_zone_device_update(struct
>> thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>       tz->notify_event = event;
>> -    for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>> -        handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>> +    if (tz->last_temperature <= tz->temperature) {
>> +        for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>> +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>> +    } else {
>> +        for (count = tz->prev_trip; count >= 0; count--)
>> +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>> +    }
>
> In general the code look good. I have one question, though:
> Is it always true that these trip points coming from the DT
> and parsed in thermal_of_build_thermal_zone() populated by
>     for_each_child_of_node(child, gchild) {
>          thermal_of_populate_trip(gchild, &tz->trips[i++]);
>
> are always defined in right order in DT?

Hmm, that is a good question. Even if the convention is to put the trip
point in the ascending order, I don't find any documentation telling it
is mandatory. Given that I don't feel particularly comfortable to assume
that is the case.

Perhaps, it would make more sense to build a map of indexes telling the
order in the trip points and work with it instead.


--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-12 14:31    [W:0.064 / U:1.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site