On 28/06/2019 11:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:02 PM Daniel Lezcano > <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. >> >> Because the cpufreq_cooling_unregister() function uses the policy to >> unregister itself. The only purpose of the cooling device pointer is >> to unregister the cpu cooling device. >> >> As there is no more need of this pointer, remove it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This doesn't apply for me. > > Care to rebase it on top of the Linus' tree? Sure but the patch depends on 1/3 which is in bleeding edge. Shall I rebase the 3 patches on v5.2-rc6 and resend ? -- <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
