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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:48 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 ?

If thermal_class.p is cleared to NULL on class_register() failures in
thermal_init() (unfortunately, the driver core doesn't do that, but
maybe it should - let me cut a patch for that), then it can be used
for that.