[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g5pmZFWdZBVvzsUBDvOQiUi-_BCghirKOAXdgxS2Knkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 23:07:31 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] thermal: core: introduce thermal zone device mode control
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
<enric.balletbo@...labora.com> wrote:
> From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
>
> Thermal "mode" sysfs attribute is introduced to enable/disable a thermal zone,
> and .get_mode()/.set_mode() callback is introduced for platform thermal driver
> to enable/disable the hardware thermal control logic. And thermal core takes
> no action upon thermal zone enable/disable.
>
> Actually, this is not quite right because thermal core still pokes those
> disabled thermal zones occasionally, e.g. upon system resume.
>
> To fix this, a new flag 'mode' is introduced in struct thermal_zone_device
> to represent the thermal zone mode, and several decisions have been made
> based on this flag, including
> 1. check the thermal zone mode right after it's registered.
> 2. skip updating thermal zone if the zone is disabled
> 3. stop the polling timer when the thermal zone is disabled
>
> Note: basically, this patch doesn't affect the existing always-enabled
> thermal zones much, with just one exception -
> thermal zone .get_mode() must be well prepared to reflect the real thermal
> zone status upon the thermal zone registration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> Tested-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
I'm thinking that Rui is going to push this patch himself, in which
case there's no need to resend (and you should add your sign-off to
the patch when resending it anyway).
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists