On 01/08/2023 21:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
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.
Oh never mind, I read '=' not '=='
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.
--
<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
