Re: [PATCH v1] thermal: trip: Rework thermal_zone_set_trip() and its callers

[Lukasz Luba]

On 11/28/23 12:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:53 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Lukasz,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:16 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > On 11/27/23 19:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> [cut]
>
> > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c
> > > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c
> > > > @@ -148,42 +148,61 @@ int thermal_zone_get_trip(struct thermal
> > > >    EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thermal_zone_get_trip);
> > > >
> > > >    int thermal_zone_set_trip(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int trip_id,
> > > > -                       const struct thermal_trip *trip)
> > > > +                       enum thermal_set_trip_target what, const char *buf)
> > > >    {
> > > > -     struct thermal_trip t;
> > > > -     int ret;
> > > > +     struct thermal_trip *trip;
> > > > +     int val, ret = 0;
> > > >
> > > > -     if (!tz->ops->set_trip_temp && !tz->ops->set_trip_hyst && !tz->trips)
> > > > -             return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Here we could bail out when there are no callbacks.
> >
> > Not really, because the trip is updated regardless.
>
> Actually, the condition above is always false after recent changes,
> because tz->trips[] is always present, so the if () statement is
> redundant.

Hmm, yes you're right. This is yet another sign to refactor the old
code.

For the rest of your comments in the earlier message - I agree.

When you post the v2 I can give it a try later today.

Regards,
Lukasz