[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2d680cd9-9e97-e06c-55c2-2a3a1504488e@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 14:30:54 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc: quic_manafm@...cinc.com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>, rafael@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal/core: Fix thermal trip cross point
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists