Re: [PATCH] thermal/core: Make 'forced_passive' as obsolete candidate

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 12/12/2020 21:08, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/12/2020 04:50, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Yes - what's the reason to do so?
>>
>> I'm cleaning up the thermal core code, so questioning every old ABI.
>>
>>> The code isn't specific to ACPI,
>>> so being able to override ACPI tables doesn't seem to justify it.
>>
>> I agree, the code is no specific to ACPI.
>>
>> What non-ACPI architecture, without device tree or platform data would
>> need the 'passive' option today ?
> 
> Anything that provides a trip point that has no active notifications and
> doesn't provide any information that tells the kernel to poll it.

I'm not able to create a setup as you describe working correctly with
the forced passive trip point.

The forced passive trip can not be detected as there is no comparison
with the defined temperature in the thermal_zone_device_update() function.

The commit 0c01ebbfd3caf1 may be responsible of this.

If my analysis is correct, this 'feature' is broken since years, more
than 8 years to be exact and nobody complained.

If I'm right, we can remove this feature directly.


-- 
<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