Hello Viresh, On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:38:39AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Few nits.. > > On 26 November 2014 at 23:20, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > The normal practice is to write the non-commitable part here ... > err... normal practice by whom? hehe... My "normal" practice is to allow people to read the diff stat before my extra comments :-) > > drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 5 +++++ > > drivers/thermal/db8500_cpufreq_cooling.c | 5 ----- > > drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 5 ----- > > drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_thermal_common.c | 2 +- > > drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 6 ------ > > 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > --- > > But this works as well :) > hehe ok. > > This is attempt to organize the cpu cooling vs. cpufreq boot sequencing. > > The main change in this patch, as in the commit log, is to have the check > > for the cpufreq layer in the cpu cooling device registration, instead of > > in thermal drivers. This way, drivers don't need to bother about it, they > > just need to propagate the error value. > > > > This change was tested on top of: > > (0) - Viresh's change in cpufreq layer and cpufreq-dt (up to patch 4): > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384141/ > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384151/ > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384161/ > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384171/ > > (1) - fix of thermal core: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5326991/ > > > > After Viresh's changes, cpufreq-dt is properly sequenced with cpu cooling > > registration. Non-of based drivers also should take advantage if these > > changes, as now they do not need to check for cpufreq layer. The check is > > where it belongs, in cpu cooling device registration. > > > > BR, Eduardo Valentin > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > > index 1ab0018..9e6945b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > > @@ -440,6 +440,11 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np, > > int ret = 0, i; > > struct cpufreq_policy policy; > > > > + if (!cpufreq_get_current_driver() || !cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0)) { > > Only !cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0) is enough here. > Yeah, I thought of it too. Just combined what people had in their drivers here. But I agree that latter is enough. > For rest: > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> Ok. though.. "normal practice" says ack's are oftern used by the maintainer of the affected code (quoting Documentation/SubmittingPatches) :-) BR, Eduardo Valenti
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
