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

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24-06-19, 09:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 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?

I am not sure what you are proposing here :)

-- 
viresh