Messages in this thread | | | From | "Zhang, Rui" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] thermal/core: Enforce paired .bind/.unbind callbacks | Date | Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:03:35 +0000 |
| |
On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 14:24 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 8:08 AM Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > wrote: > > The .bind/.unbind callbacks are designed to allow the thermal zone > > device to bind to/unbind from a matched cooling device, with > > thermal > > instances created/deleted. > > > > In this sense, .bind/.unbind callbacks must exist in pairs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > index 5225d65fb0e0..9c447f22cb39 100644 > > --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > @@ -1258,6 +1258,11 @@ > > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(const char *type, struct > > thermal_trip *t > > if (num_trips > 0 && (!ops->get_trip_type || !ops- > > >get_trip_temp) && !trips) > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > + if ((ops->bind && !ops->unbind) || (!ops->bind && ops- > > >unbind)) { > > This can be written as > > if (!!ops->bind != !!ops->unbind) { > > > + pr_err("Thermal zone device .bind/.unbind not > > paired\n"); > > And surely none of the existing drivers do that? Because it would be > a functional regression if they did.
Yeah, I did a check and all drivers provide .bind/.unbind callbacks in pairs.
Hi, Daniel, I know you're dealing with various of thermal drivers recently, are you aware of any exceptions?
thanks, rui
| |