Re: [PATCH 3/5] thermal/core: Remove unneeded mutex_destroy()

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 19/01/2023 13:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:30 AM Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 19/01/2023 08:41, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > If the thermal framework fails to initialize, the mutex can be used
> > > > by
> > > > the different functions registering a thermal zone anyway.
> > >
> > > Hmm, even with no governors and unregistered thermal sysfs class?
> > >
> > > IMO, thermal APIs for registering a thermal_zone/cooling_device should
> > > yield early if thermal_init fails.
> > > For other APIs that relies on a valid
> > > thermal_zone_device/thermal_cooling_device pointer, nothing needs to
> > > be changed.
> > >
> > > what do you think?
> >
> > I think you are right.
> >
> > It would be nice if we can check if the thermal class is registered and
> > bail out if not. But there is no function to check that AFAICS.
> >
> > Alternatively we can convert the thermal class static structure to a
> > pointer and set it to NULL in case of error in thermal_init() ?
>
> It doesn't matter if this is a NULL pointer or a static object that's
> clearly marked as unused.

Without introducing another global variable, is it possible to know if 
the class is used or not ?

--
<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