On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling > device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function > cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make > sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the > code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an > extra variable in each driver using this function. > > Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 2 +- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- > drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 4 ++-- > .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 2 +- > include/linux/cpu_cooling.h | 6 +++--- > 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> -- viresh
