On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:58 AM Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28/06/2019 11:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:02 PM Daniel Lezcano > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling > >> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function > >> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make > >> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the > >> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an > >> extra variable in each driver using this function. > >> > >> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy. > >> > >> Because the cpufreq_cooling_unregister() function uses the policy to > >> unregister itself. The only purpose of the cooling device pointer is > >> to unregister the cpu cooling device. > >> > >> As there is no more need of this pointer, remove it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > > > This doesn't apply for me. > > > > Care to rebase it on top of the Linus' tree? > > Sure but the patch depends on 1/3 which is in bleeding edge. Shall I > rebase the 3 patches on v5.2-rc6 and resend ?
You can do that. Alternatively, you can rebase on top of my linux-next branch.
