On 11/04/2020 19:26, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 4/11/20 9:45 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 11/04/2020 03:32, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 4/10/20 3:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> The function thermal_cdev_upadte is called from the throttling
>>>
>>> misspelled
>>>
>>>> functions in the governors not from the cooling device itself.
>>>>
>>>> The cooling device is set to its maximum state and then updated. Even
>>>> if I don't get the purpose of probing the pwm-fan to its maximum
>>>> cooling state, we can replace the thermal_cdev_update() call to the
>>>> internal set_cur_state() function directly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 3 +--
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
>>>> index 30b7b3ea8836..a654ecdf21ab 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
>>>> @@ -372,7 +372,6 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> - ctx->pwm_fan_state = ctx->pwm_fan_max_state;
>>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THERMAL)) {
>>>> cdev = devm_thermal_of_cooling_device_register(dev,
>>>> dev->of_node, "pwm-fan", ctx, &pwm_fan_cooling_ops);
>>>> @@ -384,7 +383,7 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> ctx->cdev = cdev;
>>>> - thermal_cdev_update(cdev);
>>>> + pwm_fan_set_cur_state(cdev, ctx->pwm_fan_max_state);
>>>
>>> So far the function would only change the state if the new
>>> state is not equal to the old state. This was the case because
>>> pwm_fan_state was set to pwm_fan_max_state, and the call to
>>> thermal_cdev_update() and thus pwm_fan_set_cur_state() would
>>> do nothing except update statistics. The old code _assumed_
>>> that the current state is pwm_fan_max_state. The new code
>>> enforces it. That is a substantial semantic change, and it
>>> is not really reflected in the commit message. Is that really
>>> what you want ? If so, the commit message needs to state that
>>> and explain the rationale.
>>
>> Well, to be honest I'm not getting the rational of calling
>> thermal_cdev_update(cdev) right after
>> devm_thermal_of_cooling_device_register() neither setting pwm_fan_state
>> to pwm_fan_max_state.
>>
> Good question. The author might know/recall. Maybe the idea was that
> thermal would update the state to a lower state shortly thereafter.
>
>> Do we have the guarantee there is at this point a thermal instance
>> making the target state working when thermal_cdev_update is called?
>>
>> Are we sure a thermal_cdev_update(cdev) is actually right here?
>>
> I don't know. I am not exactly familiar with thermal subsystem
> particulars. I do recall seeing similar code in other drivers, though.
This call is done only in the governors actually.
> Either case, your patch does change functionality, and we should not
> do that without understanding its impact.
Right, so I've been hacking my board, added a pwm-fan and binded the
thermal zone to it.
As expected, the call to thermal_cdev_update() is not needed.
ctx->pwm_fan_state = ctx->pwm_fan_max_state;
intializes to a max value (in my case it is 3). Right after it calls
thermal_cdev_update() which fails to find any instance active because we
are at init time and then calls set_cur_state with the target state set
to zero and passing through a stats usage for nothing.
The ctx->pwm_fan_state is only used by the cooling device ops, so I
don't see any reason why it is set to pwm_fan_max_state before the
compilation condition.
May be there is something subtle here.
Lukasz ? Is there any reason why thermal_cdev_update() was called here ?
IMO, this function is a governor thing and it must be removed from the
cooling device.
--
<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
