Re: [GIT PULL] platform-drivers-x86 for v7.2-1

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 6/23/26 18:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 5:37 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 11:42, Ilpo Järvinen
> > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > There is going to be a conflict with the commit 3570cb58e317 ("thermal/of:
> > > Pass cdev_id and introduce devm registration helper") and a few other
> > > commits that came from thermal tree effectively resulting in a change in
> > > devm_thermal_of_cooling_device_register() signature. It needs to be
> > > addressed in the merge commit or the build will fail.
> > >
> > > Mark's linux-next discovery about the build failure:
> > >
> > >    https://lore.kernel.org/all/aibZy5rrdX3ltGpr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > That resolution makes absolutely no sense.
> >
> > Now that qcom_ec_probe() goes through all the work to create a name for the fan:
> >
> >                  char name[EC_FAN_NAME_SIZE];
> >
> >                  scnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "qcom_ec_fan_%u", i);
> >
> > but then the name is actually never *used* after the change.
> >
> > The *logical* resolution would be to make it use
> >
> >     devm_thermal_of_child_cooling_device_register()
> >
> > instead, which that function was renamed to in commit 8e1529e79385
> > ("thermal/of: Rename the devm_thermal_of_cooling_device_register()
> > function")
> >
> > I have done that resolution that at least makes sense.
> >
> > But honestly, this is all a complete mess.
> >
> > Why the hell was that function renamed, and then a new function
> > created with the old name - when that new function then has exactly
> > ZERO users?
> >
> > Renaming a function, and then re-using the old name immediately for
> > something else is a BAD IDEA. It causes exactly this kind of horrible
> > confusion. It's an even worse idea when there are exactly zero new
> > users that make that confusion worthwhile.
> >
> > Thermal people - you effed up. Stop doing this kind of crap. This is insanity.
>
> Right, the new function should have been given a different name.
>
> Sorry for letting this slip in.

Yes, sorry for that. I'll take care of not reusing the same function 
name in the future