Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] thermal/acpi: Add ACPI trip point routines

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 22/01/2023 23:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 12:15:28 AM CET Daniel Lezcano wrote:
The ACPI specification describes the trip points, the device tree
bindings as well.

The OF code uses the generic trip point structures.

The ACPI has their own trip points structure and uses the get_trip_*
ops to retrieve them.

We can do the same as the OF code and create a set of ACPI functions
to retrieve a trip point description. Having a common code for ACPI
will help to cleanup the remaining Intel drivers and get rid of the
get_trip_* functions.

These changes add the ACPI thermal calls to retrieve the basic
information we need to be reused in the thermal ACPI and Intel
drivers.

The different ACPI functions have the generic trip point structure
passed as parameter where it is filled.

This structure aims to be the one used by all the thermal drivers and
the thermal framework.

After this series, a couple of Intel drivers and the ACPI thermal
driver will still have their own trip points definition but a new
series on top of this one will finish the conversion to the generic
trip point handling.

This series depends on the generic trip point added to the thermal
framework and available in the thermal/linux-next branch.

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/10/3/456

It has been tested on a Intel i7-8650U - x280 with the INT3400, the
PCH, ACPITZ, and x86_pkg_temp. No regression observed so far.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Co-developed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>

Also I'm not sure if this version has been tested and reviewed.

There are still a few things to improve in it, but overall I think that
something like the patch below would be better - it is fewer lines of code
and less duplication.

I'm always in favor of the simplest code, in terms of line of code and readability. I'm perfectly fine with your proposal.


--
<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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux