[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb44e8f7-92f6-0756-a622-1128d830291c@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 09:02:23 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, vadimp@...dia.com
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"open list:MELLANOX ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVERS" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal/drivers/mellanox: Use generic
thermal_zone_get_trip() function
Hi Ido,
On 18/10/2022 08:28, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> + Vadim
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:32:51AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The thermal framework gives the possibility to register the trip
>> points with the thermal zone. When that is done, no get_trip_* ops are
>> needed and they can be removed.
>>
>> Convert ops content logic into generic trip points and register them with the
>> thermal zone.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>
> Vadim, can you please review and test?
>
> Daniel, I saw that you wrote to Kalle that you want to take it via the
> thermal tree. Any reason not to take it via net-next? I'm asking because
> it will be the second release in a row where we need to try to avoid
> conflicts in this file.
Because I hope I can remove the ops->get_trip_ ops from thermal_ops
structure before the end of this cycle.
May be you can consider moving the thermal driver into drivers/thermal?
--
<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