Re: [PATCH 2/5] thermal: gov_power_allocator: Refactor check_power_actors()

[Lukasz Luba]

On 12/20/23 14:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 12:30 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Refactor check_power_actors() to make it possible for re-use in the
> > upcoming new callback.
>
> I would say "In preparation for a subsequent change, rearrange
> check_power_actors()".

Agree, I'll use it.

> > No intentional functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 10 ++++++----
> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> > index 785fff14223d..38e1e89ba10c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> > @@ -581,8 +581,9 @@ static void allow_maximum_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, bool update)
> >    * power actor API. The warning should help to investigate the issue, which
> >    * could be e.g. lack of Energy Model for a given device.
> >    *
> > - * Return: 0 on success, -EINVAL if any cooling device does not implement
> > - * the power actor API.
> > + * Return number of cooling devices or -EINVAL if any cooling device does not
> > + * implement the power actor API. Return value 0 is also valid since cooling
> > + * devices might be attached later.
>
> I would say "If all of the cooling devices currently attached to @tz
> implement the power actor API, return the number of them (which may be
> 0, because some cooling devices may be attached later).  Otherwise,
> return -EINVAL."

Yes, I'll use that sentence as well.
Those will be in the next version (v3). Thanks!