On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 12:30 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Refactor check_power_actors() to make it possible for re-use in the
upcoming new callback.
I would say "In preparation for a subsequent change, rearrange
check_power_actors()".
No intentional functional impact.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
index 785fff14223d..38e1e89ba10c 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
@@ -581,8 +581,9 @@ static void allow_maximum_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, bool update)
* power actor API. The warning should help to investigate the issue, which
* could be e.g. lack of Energy Model for a given device.
*
- * Return: 0 on success, -EINVAL if any cooling device does not implement
- * the power actor API.
+ * Return number of cooling devices or -EINVAL if any cooling device does not
+ * implement the power actor API. Return value 0 is also valid since cooling
+ * devices might be attached later.
I would say "If all of the cooling devices currently attached to @tz
implement the power actor API, return the number of them (which may be
0, because some cooling devices may be attached later). Otherwise,
return -EINVAL."