linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] thermal/drivers/intel: Use generic trip points for intel_soc_dts

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gSUrkpAR+9OcWZw2WJ=AWDh2apHwAmd+cKOS1F1cJ4cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:09:24 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...nel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] thermal/drivers/intel: Use generic trip points for intel_soc_dts_iosf

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:28 AM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2023 21:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 7:09 PM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Srinivas,
> >>
> >> On 19/01/2023 21:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:16 PM Daniel Lezcano
> >>> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...nel.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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>
> >>>> ---
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -320,7 +304,8 @@ static int add_dts_thermal_zone(int id, struct intel_soc_dts_sensor_entry *dts,
> >>>>           dts->trip_mask = trip_mask;
> >>>>           dts->trip_count = trip_count;
> >>>>           snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "soc_dts%d", id);
> >>>> -       dts->tzone = thermal_zone_device_register(name,
> >>>> +       dts->tzone = thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(name,
> >>>> +                                                 dts->trips,
> >>>>                                                     trip_count,
> >>>>                                                     trip_mask,
> >>>>                                                     dts, &tzone_ops,
> >>>> @@ -430,27 +415,28 @@ struct intel_soc_dts_sensors *intel_soc_dts_iosf_init(
> >>>>                   notification = false;
> >>>>           else
> >>>>                   notification = true;
> >>>> -       for (i = 0; i < SOC_MAX_DTS_SENSORS; ++i) {
> >>>> -               sensors->soc_dts[i].sensors = sensors;
> >>>> -               ret = add_dts_thermal_zone(i, &sensors->soc_dts[i],
> >>>> -                                          notification, trip_count,
> >>>> -                                          read_only_trip_count);
> >>>> -               if (ret)
> >>>> -                       goto err_free;
> >>>> -       }
> >>>
> >>> How is this change related to the rest of the patch?
> >>
> >> We want to register the thermal zone with the trip points.
> >>
> >> thermal_zone_device_register() becomes
> >>
> >> thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips()
> >>
> >> But in the current code, the trip points are updated after the thermal
> >> zones are created (and strictly speaking it is wrong as get_trip_temp
> >> can be invoked before the trip points are updated).
> >>
> >> So the change inverts the initialization where we update the trip points
> >> and then we register the thermal zones.
> >
> > It would be nice to write this in the changelog too.
>
> Srinivasn, are you fine with the changes ?
>
> Rafael, if the patches are ok, shall I resend a new version with the
> changelog updated or can you pick them amending the changelog ?

I can pick them up, but I would like to hear from Srinivas first.