On 24/06/2019 08:03, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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> Just a side note, does it make sense to have the function called from imx_thermal.c and ti-thermal-common.c? Sounds like also a leakage from cpufreq to thermal drivers, no? -- <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
