| Message ID | 20171114134829.1354-1-bst@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
+ Shawn On 14-11-17, 14:48, Bastian Stender wrote: > The cooling device should not be part of the i.MX thermal code but > rather in the i.MX cpufreq driver. So remove it here. > > Signed-off-by: Bastian Stender <bst@pengutronix.de> Shouldn't the two patches you sent be part of a series? What if one gets applied before the other? For example if the cpufreq patch gets applied before this one, then the kernel would break somewhere as two drivers would be adding the cpu-cooling device :) I am fine with the content of this patch though.
On 15-11-17, 10:26, Viresh Kumar wrote: > + Shawn > > On 14-11-17, 14:48, Bastian Stender wrote: > > The cooling device should not be part of the i.MX thermal code but > > rather in the i.MX cpufreq driver. So remove it here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bastian Stender <bst@pengutronix.de> > > Shouldn't the two patches you sent be part of a series? What if one gets applied > before the other? For example if the cpufreq patch gets applied before this one, > then the kernel would break somewhere as two drivers would be adding the > cpu-cooling device :) Actually, we may really want to have a single patch for this. So I would suggest that we merge both the patches.
On 11/15/2017 06:00 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-11-17, 10:26, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> + Shawn >> >> On 14-11-17, 14:48, Bastian Stender wrote: >>> The cooling device should not be part of the i.MX thermal code but >>> rather in the i.MX cpufreq driver. So remove it here. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bastian Stender <bst@pengutronix.de> >> >> Shouldn't the two patches you sent be part of a series? What if one gets applied >> before the other? For example if the cpufreq patch gets applied before this one, >> then the kernel would break somewhere as two drivers would be adding the >> cpu-cooling device :) > > Actually, we may really want to have a single patch for this. So I would suggest > that we merge both the patches. Okay, I will send a merged v2. Regards, Bastian
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c index 4798b4b1fd77..3bdbde675698 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c @@ -91,7 +91,6 @@ static struct thermal_soc_data thermal_imx6sx_data = { struct imx_thermal_data { struct cpufreq_policy *policy; struct thermal_zone_device *tz; - struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev; enum thermal_device_mode mode; struct regmap *tempmon; u32 c1, c2; /* See formula in imx_get_sensor_data() */ @@ -533,22 +532,12 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return -EPROBE_DEFER; } - data->cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy); - if (IS_ERR(data->cdev)) { - ret = PTR_ERR(data->cdev); - dev_err(&pdev->dev, - "failed to register cpufreq cooling device: %d\n", ret); - cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy); - return ret; - } - data->thermal_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); if (IS_ERR(data->thermal_clk)) { ret = PTR_ERR(data->thermal_clk); if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get thermal clk: %d\n", ret); - cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev); cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy); return ret; } @@ -563,7 +552,6 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) ret = clk_prepare_enable(data->thermal_clk); if (ret) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to enable thermal clk: %d\n", ret); - cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev); cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy); return ret; } @@ -579,7 +567,6 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register thermal zone device %d\n", ret); clk_disable_unprepare(data->thermal_clk); - cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev); cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy); return ret; } @@ -608,7 +595,6 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request alarm irq: %d\n", ret); clk_disable_unprepare(data->thermal_clk); thermal_zone_device_unregister(data->tz); - cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev); cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy); return ret; } @@ -630,7 +616,6 @@ static int imx_thermal_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) clk_disable_unprepare(data->thermal_clk); thermal_zone_device_unregister(data->tz); - cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev); cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy); return 0;
The cooling device should not be part of the i.MX thermal code but rather in the i.MX cpufreq driver. So remove it here. Signed-off-by: Bastian Stender <bst@pengutronix.de> --- This is part of a rework of "thermal: imx: use cpufreq cooling of registration method" (id:20171103164203.5805-1-bst@pengutronix.de). "cpufreq: imx6q: add CPU as cooling device" will reintroduce the cooling device. --- drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 15 --------------- 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)