lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] thermal: trip: Rework thermal_zone_set_trip() and its callers
From


On 11/28/23 12:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:53 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lukasz,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:16 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>
>>> On 11/27/23 19:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>>
>
> [cut]
>
>>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c
>>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c
>>>> @@ -148,42 +148,61 @@ int thermal_zone_get_trip(struct thermal
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thermal_zone_get_trip);
>>>>
>>>> int thermal_zone_set_trip(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int trip_id,
>>>> - const struct thermal_trip *trip)
>>>> + enum thermal_set_trip_target what, const char *buf)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct thermal_trip t;
>>>> - int ret;
>>>> + struct thermal_trip *trip;
>>>> + int val, ret = 0;
>>>>
>>>> - if (!tz->ops->set_trip_temp && !tz->ops->set_trip_hyst && !tz->trips)
>>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> Here we could bail out when there are no callbacks.
>>
>> Not really, because the trip is updated regardless.
>
> Actually, the condition above is always false after recent changes,
> because tz->trips[] is always present, so the if () statement is
> redundant.

Hmm, yes you're right. This is yet another sign to refactor the old
code.

For the rest of your comments in the earlier message - I agree.

When you post the v2 I can give it a try later today.

Regards,
Lukasz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-28 14:14    [W:0.034 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site