[PATCH 1/1] thermal: cpu_cooling: check for the readiness of cpufreq layer

[Viresh Kumar]

Few nits..

On 26 November 2014 at 23:20, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval at gmail.com> wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval at gmail.com>
> ---

The normal practice is to write the non-commitable part here ...

>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                      | 5 +++++
>  drivers/thermal/db8500_cpufreq_cooling.c           | 5 -----
>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                      | 5 -----
>  drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_thermal_common.c    | 2 +-
>  drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 6 ------
>  5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> ---

But this works as well :)

> This is attempt to organize the cpu cooling vs. cpufreq boot sequencing.
> The main change in this patch, as in the commit log, is to have the check
> for the cpufreq layer in the cpu cooling device registration, instead of
> in thermal drivers. This way, drivers don't need to bother about it, they
> just need to propagate the error value.
>
> This change was tested on top of:
> (0) - Viresh's change in cpufreq layer and cpufreq-dt (up to patch 4):
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384141/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384151/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384161/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384171/
> (1) - fix of thermal core:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5326991/
>
> After Viresh's changes, cpufreq-dt is properly sequenced with cpu cooling
> registration. Non-of based drivers also should take advantage if these
> changes, as now they do not need to check for cpufreq layer. The check is
> where it belongs, in cpu cooling device registration.
>
> BR, Eduardo Valentin
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> index 1ab0018..9e6945b 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> @@ -440,6 +440,11 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
>         int ret = 0, i;
>         struct cpufreq_policy policy;
>
> +       if (!cpufreq_get_current_driver() || !cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0)) {

Only !cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0) is enough here.

For rest:

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>