6.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit 488164006a281986d95abbc4b26e340c19c4c85b ] Currently, thermal zones associated with providers that have interrupts for signaling hot/critical trips are required to set a polling-delay of 0 to indicate no polling. This feels a bit backwards. Change the code such that "no polling delay" also means "no polling". Suggested-by: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240125-topic-thermal-v1-2-3c9d4dced138@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/thermal/thermal_of.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_of.c b/drivers/thermal/thermal_of.c index 4104743dbc17e..202dce0d2e309 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_of.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_of.c @@ -337,14 +337,18 @@ static int thermal_of_monitor_init(struct device_node *np, int *delay, int *pdel int ret; ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "polling-delay-passive", pdelay); - if (ret < 0) { - pr_err("%pOFn: missing polling-delay-passive property\n", np); + if (ret == -EINVAL) { + *pdelay = 0; + } else if (ret < 0) { + pr_err("%pOFn: Couldn't get polling-delay-passive: %d\n", np, ret); return ret; } ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "polling-delay", delay); - if (ret < 0) { - pr_err("%pOFn: missing polling-delay property\n", np); + if (ret == -EINVAL) { + *delay = 0; + } else if (ret < 0) { + pr_err("%pOFn: Couldn't get polling-delay: %d\n", np, ret); return ret; } -- 2.43.0
