> >> > G5. unify active cooling and passive cooling code > >> > > >> > If G4 and G5 are resolved, a new problem to me is that there is no > >> > difference between passive cooling and active cooling except the > >> > cooling policy. > > > > OK... > > > >> > Then we can share the same code for both active and passive cooling. > >> > maybe something like: > >> > > >> > case THERMAL_TRIP_ACTIVE: > >> > case THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE: > >> > ... > >> > tz->ops->get_trend(); > > > > Would the get_trend take into account if we are cooling with active or passive > > cooling device? > > > >> > if (trend == HEATING) > >> > cdev->ops->set_cur_state(cdev, cur_state++); > >> > else if (trend == COOLING) > >> > cdev->ops->set_cur_state(cdev, cur_state--); > >> > break; > > > > I believe we should have something for temperature stabilization there as well. > I also agree that thermal stablization is important. I have observed > that too much state change is happening around the trip point. But yes > the trend callback may take care of this and set the COOLING trend > different from HEATING trend. that's why Matthew and I are asking you to try to fit into the current passive cooling implementation first, as the current algorithm is really a good one, if you can make use of it. .get_trend() is just a backup for this. thanks, rui _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
