On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 22:01 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 18/01/2023 21:53, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 21:00 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > On 18/01/2023 20:16, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > > > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > > > But we'd better wait for the thermald test result from > > > > > > Srinvias. > > > > > > > > > > A quick test show that things still work with thermald and > > > > > these > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > But I have a question. In some devices trip point temperature > > > > is > > > > not > > > > static. When hardware changes, we get notification. For example > > > > INT3403_PERF_TRIP_POINT_CHANGED for INT3403 drivers. > > > > Currently get_trip can get the latest changed value. But if we > > > > preregister, we need some mechanism to update them. > > > > > > When the notification INT3403_PERF_TRIP_POINT_CHANGED happens, we > > > call > > > int340x_thermal_read_trips() which in turn updates the trip > > > points. > > > > > > > Not sure how we handle concurrency here when driver can freely > > update > > trips while thermal core is using trips. > > Don't we have the same race without this patch ? The thermal core can > call get_trip_temp() while there is an update, no ? Yes it is. But I can add a mutex locally here to solve. But not any longer. I think you need some thermal_zone_read_lock/unlock() in core, which can use rcu. Even mutex is fine as there will be no contention as updates to trips will be rare. Thanks, Srinivas >
