Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] ACPI: processor: thermal: Update CPU cooling devices on cpufreq policy changes

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 5:47 PM Zhang, Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 20:23 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When a cpufreq policy appears or goes away, the CPU cooling devices
> > for
> > the CPUs covered by that policy need to be updated so that the new
> > processor_get_max_state() value is stored as max_state and the
> > statistics in sysfs are rearranged for each of them.
> >
> > Do that accordingly in acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init() and
> > acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit().
> >
> > Fixes: a365105c685c("thermal: sysfs: Reuse cdev->max_state")
> > Reported-by: Wang, Quanxian <quanxian.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/53ec1f06f61c984100868926f282647e57ecfb2d.camel@xxxxxxxxx/
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c |   16 +++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
> > @@ -140,9 +140,14 @@ void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init(struct cp
> >               ret = freq_qos_add_request(&policy->constraints,
> >                                          &pr->thermal_req,
> >                                          FREQ_QOS_MAX, INT_MAX);
> > -             if (ret < 0)
> > +             if (ret < 0) {
> >                       pr_err("Failed to add freq constraint for CPU%d
> > (%d)\n",
> >                              cpu, ret);
> > +                     continue;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             if (!IS_ERR(pr->cdev))
> > +                     thermal_cooling_device_update(pr->cdev);
>
> Although thermal_cooling_device_update() handles "pr->cdev == NULL"
> case, I think it is better to use !IS_ERR_OR_NULL() here.

Why is it?

I was thinking about doing that, but then I realized that the NULL
case had been covered and that's why I went for the change above.  If
there is a particular reason to check for NULL here, I can do that,
but I'm not sure what it is.