Hi
2020. november 28., szombat 16:00 keltezéssel, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> írta:
> [...]
> >> +static int tpacpi_dytc_profile_init(struct ibm_init_struct *iibm)
> >> +{
> >> + int err, output;
> >> +
> >> + dytc_profile_available = false;
> >> + dytc_ignore_next_event = false;
> >> +
> >> + err = dytc_command(DYTC_CMD_QUERY, &output);
> >> + /*
> >> + * If support isn't available (ENODEV) then don't return an error
> >> + * and don't create the sysfs group
> >> + */
> >> + if (err == -ENODEV)
> >> + return 0;
> >> + /* For all other errors we can flag the failure */
> >> + if (err)
> >> + return err;
> >> +
> >> + /* Check DYTC is enabled and supports mode setting */
> >> + if (output & BIT(DYTC_QUERY_ENABLE_BIT)) {
> >> + /* Only DYTC v5.0 and later has this feature. */
> >> + int dytc_version;
> >> +
> >> + dytc_version = (output >> DYTC_QUERY_REV_BIT) & 0xF;
> >> + if (dytc_version >= 5) {
> >> + dbg_printk(TPACPI_DBG_INIT,
> >> + "DYTC version %d: thermal mode available\n", dytc_version);
> >> + /* Create platform_profile structure and register */
> >> + do {
> >> + err = platform_profile_register(&dytc_profile);
> >> + } while (err == -EINTR);
> >> [...]
> >
> > I'm wondering if this loop is really necessary?
>
> It is the result of using mutex_interruptible inside platform_profile_register(),
> once that is fixed (as I just requested in my review of patch 2/3) then this loop
> can go away.
>
Thank you, I see that, my question should've been "why not simply fail and
return the error?", but with your requested change the question is moot.
Regards,
Barnabás Pőcze
