On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:29 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 25/07/2023 14:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Trip points with temperature set to THERMAL_TEMP_INVALID are as good as > > disabled, so make handle_thermal_trip() ignore them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > v2 -> v3: No changes. > > > > v1 -> v2: No changes. > > > > --- > > drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ static void handle_thermal_trip(struct t > > struct thermal_trip trip; > > > > /* Ignore disabled trip points */ > > - if (test_bit(trip_id, &tz->trips_disabled)) > > + if (test_bit(trip_id, &tz->trips_disabled) || > > + trip.temperature == THERMAL_TEMP_INVALID) > > return; > > This will set the temperature to THERMAL_TEMP_INVALID at each thermal > zone update. What do you mean? It doesn't set anything. > It would make more sense to set it when setting the disabled bit at init > time, no? > > But is that something we really want to do ? The trip point will be > reordered due to the temperature change (-273°C) Again, I'm not sure what you mean.
