Hello,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:04:03AM +0000, R, Durgadoss wrote:
> Hi Rui,
>
> [cut.]
> > > +static void notify_user_space(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int trip)
> > > +{
> > > + mutex_lock(&tz->lock);
> > > +
> > > + kobject_uevent(&tz->device.kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE);
> > > +
> > > + mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void handle_non_critical_trips(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> > > + int trip, enum thermal_trip_type trip_type)
> > > +{
> > > + int throttle_policy = THERMAL_STEP_WISE;
> > > +
> > > + if (tz->tzp)
> > > + throttle_policy = tz->tzp->throttle_policy;
> > > +
> > > + switch (throttle_policy) {
> > > + case THERMAL_FAIR_SHARE:
> > > + fair_share_throttle(tz, trip);
> > > + break;
> > > + case THERMAL_STEP_WISE:
> > > + step_wise_throttle(tz, trip);
> > > + break;
> > > + case THERMAL_USER_SPACE:
> > > + notify_user_space(tz, trip);
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> >
> > this is a little different from what I thought.
> > IMO, each policy should register its pointer to the thermal framework.
> > and tz->tzp points to the pointer of the policy using.
> > and then, in handle_non_critical_trips(), the code would be like this:
> > if(tz->tzp)
> > tz->tzp->throttle(tz, trip);
> >
> > But this is also okay for now, because we have only one callback for
> > each policy.
>
> I completely agree with you here. When I was doing my initial development,
> I found that some policies need two arguments/ some need three etc..
> That’s why could not do a function pointer implementation.
>
> Will try to fix it up in the next version of the patches.
Cool! I'd also prefer to use the ->ops type of design, if possible.
>
> Thank you,
> Durga
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
