[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOh2x=kwGUto-TMsQORtx0CkgZSDsq6Mg1e=QKL=LeDPWJ=NPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:18:43 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: anson.huang@....com
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-imx@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: imx: fix for dependency on cpu-freq
While I am aligned with the fact that we need to carry this code for backward
compatibility, there are few things I would suggest to improve.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com> wrote:
> static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> @@ -743,6 +745,7 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> regmap_write(map, data->socdata->sensor_ctrl + REG_SET,
> data->socdata->power_down_mask);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
> if (!data->policy) {
> pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
> @@ -755,6 +758,7 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> "failed to register cpufreq cooling device: %d\n", ret);
> return ret;
> }
> +#endif
>
> data->thermal_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> if (IS_ERR(data->thermal_clk)) {
You missed the error handling code which unregisters cooling/cpufreq stuff.
And it would be better to write things in a somewhat better way, like this:
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(...)
{
... current function body
}
static void imx_thermal_unregister_legacy_cooling(...)
{
new routine body to unregister things
}
#else
static inline int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(...)
{
return 0;
}
static void imx_thermal_unregister_legacy_cooling(...) { }
#endif
And then you can get rid of ifdef hackery in the middle of probe().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists