Re: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 24/06/2019 08:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
>> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
>> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
>> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
>> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
>> extra variable in each driver using this function.
>>
>> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c               |  2 +-
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                      |  2 +-
>>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                  | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                  |  4 ++--
>>  .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c |  2 +-
>>  include/linux/cpu_cooling.h                    |  6 +++---
>>  6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

Just a side note, does it make sense to have the function called from
imx_thermal.c and ti-thermal-common.c? Sounds like also a leakage from
cpufreq to thermal drivers, no?


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â 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