Re: [Patch v5 1/2] ACPI: thermal: Add Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP) support

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

 





On 18/10/23 17:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments


On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 12:54 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Add support of "Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP)" for Passive cooling.
As per [1], _TFP overrides the "Thermal Sampling Period (_TSP)" if both
are present in a Thermal zone.

[1] ACPI Specification 6.4 - section 11.4.17. _TFP (Thermal fast Sampling
     Period)"

Signed-off-by: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 17 +++++++++++------
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index d98ff69303b3..a91e3d566858 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive {
         struct acpi_thermal_trip trip;
         unsigned long tc1;
         unsigned long tc2;
-       unsigned long tsp;
+       unsigned long passive_delay;

This is a passive trip structure anyway, so the "passive_" prefix is
redundant here.  "delay" alone would be fine.

will change in v6.

  };

  struct acpi_thermal_active {
@@ -404,11 +404,16 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz)

         tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp;

-       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp);
-       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
-               return false;
+       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp);
+       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
+               status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp);
+               if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+                       return false;

-       tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp;
+               tz->trips.passive.passive_delay = tmp * 100;
+       } else {
+               tz->trips.passive.passive_delay = tmp;
+       }

I would prefer the if () statement above to be structured the other
way around, that is

  status = ...
  if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
         tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp;
         return true;
}

status = ...
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
          return false;

etc.


Ok. will change in v6.


         return true;
  }
@@ -904,7 +909,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)

         acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip;
         if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) {
-               passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100;
+               passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.passive_delay;

                 trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE;
                 trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk);
--
2.17.1





[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