Hi,
W dniu 03.07.2020 o 08:38, Daniel Lezcano pisze:
On 03/07/2020 03:49, Zhang Rui wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 19:49 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[ ... ]
So the reason is that ->get_temp() is called while the mutex is
held and
thermal_zone_device_is_enabled() wants to take the same mutex.
Yes, that's correct.
Is adding a comment to thermal_zone_device_is_enabled() to never
call
it while the mutex is held and adding another version of it which
does
not take the mutex ok?
The thermal_zone_device_is_enabled() is only used in two places, acpi
and this imx driver, and given:
1. as soon as the mutex is released, there is no guarantee the
thermal
zone won't be changed right after, the lock is pointless, thus the
information also.
2. from a design point of view, I don't see why a driver should know
if
a thermal zone is disabled or not
It would make sense to end with this function and do not give the
different drivers an opportunity to access this information.
I agree.
Why not add change_mode for the acpi in order to enable or disable
the
events
thermal_zone_device_is_enabled() is invoked in acpi thermal driver
because we only want to do thermal_zone_device_update() when the acpi
thermal zone is enabled.
As thermal_zone_device_update() can handle a disabled thermal zone now,
we can just remove the check.
Ah yes, good point!
I sent a short series with fixes. Daniel, can you kindly test it?
Regards,
Andrzej
