On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 5:08 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 6:59 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Some drivers are declaring a thermal zone without any thermal trip > > points. > > > > On the other side, we are introducing the function > > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() which provides an array of > > generic thermal trip points. When all the drivers will be converted to > > the generic trip points, keeping two functions will be useless. > > > > Most of the drivers are now using > > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() with the generic trip > > points. As soon as the remaining drivers are merged, the > > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() will be renamed to > > thermal_zone_device_register(). > > So why is this the first time I'm learning about this plan? > > > Obviously this renaming can only happen if there are no more user of > > the thermal_zone_device_register() function. > > > > This change uses thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() with a NULL > > parameter for the trip point array instead of > > thermal_zone_device_register(). > > And later it will be renamed to thermal_zone_device_register() again? > > Can we just stop confusing people this way? > > What would be wrong with changing both > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() and > thermal_zone_device_register() together when we are ready? And why > can't the both be replaced with something line thermal_zone_register() > doing all of the necessary things in one go? Why do we have to make > confusing and redundant changes? Or you can define a thermal_register_tripless_zone() wrapper around thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() and make the drivers in question use that, and modify them just once.
