Hi Rui,
[cut.]
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * This structure is used to describe the behavior of
> > > > + * a certain cooling device on a certain trip point
> > > > + * in a certain thermal zone
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct thermal_instance {
> > > > + int id;
> > > > + char name[THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH];
> > > > + struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
> > > > + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
> > > > + int trip;
> > > > + unsigned long upper; /* Highest cooling state for this trip point */
> > > > + unsigned long lower; /* Lowest cooling state for this trip point */
> > > > + unsigned long target; /* expected cooling state */
> > > > + char attr_name[THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH];
> > > > + struct device_attribute attr;
> > > > + struct list_head tz_node; /* node in tz->thermal_instances */
> > > > + struct list_head cdev_node; /* node in cdev->thermal_instances */
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > >
> > > as this structure is used internally only, I'm thinking if we can rename
> > > drivers/thermal/thermal_sys.c to drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c,
> > > and introduce drivers/thermal/thermal_core.h for these internal stuff.
> > > what do you think?
> >
> > Yes agree with you.
> > Also, we can keep the sysfs things in thermal_sys.c
> > and rest of the things in thermal_core.c, and have a thermal_core.h also.
> > (This is how the power supply subsystem does it)
> >
> > I will include this clean up, as part of v2, if you are Ok with this.
> >
> yes, please go ahead.
Ok. I will include this change.
>
> > Other things;
> > I was thinking is 'removal of netlink things' from
> > thermal_sys.c
>
> and where to move it to?
I was thinking of completely removing this, as raw netlink
usage is phasing out, and kobj_uevent () is being used
increasingly.
But we will keep it as a separate change, and not club with this one.
> >
> > Removing the hwmon related code (the thermal subsystem has grown
> > quite a bit and provides more thermal functionalities than Hwmon)
> > So, why do we need CONFIG_HWMON inside thermal subsystem ?
> > If all of us agree, I am Ok to remove this also.
> >
> we need Jean's opinion on this.
> But anyway, we can do this at anytime, if really needed.
Yes, will wait for Jean's thoughts..
Thanks,
Durga
>
> thanks,
> rui
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
