On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 12:40 +0900, [email protected] wrote: > On 2013년 05월 21일 01:00, Zhang, Rui wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jonghwa Lee [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:51 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; Zhang, Rui; Eduardo Valentin; Amit > >> Dinel Kachhap; Jonghwa Lee; MyungJoo Ham > >> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal:core: Handle trips focused on current trip > >> point only. > >> Importance: High > >> > >> When thermal zone device is updated, it doesn't need to check every > >> trip points and its handling mathod even current temperature doesn't > >> exceed the trip's temperature. To modify those dissipatve mechanism, > >> this patch introduces the way to get current thermal trip point to call > >> only correspond trip point handling. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jonghwa Lee <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <[email protected]> > > > > NAK. > > > >> --- > >> drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- > >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > >> b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c index ce4384a..1cc4825 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > >> +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > >> @@ -333,14 +333,6 @@ static void handle_non_critical_trips(struct > >> thermal_zone_device *tz, static void handle_critical_trips(struct > >> thermal_zone_device *tz, > >> int trip, enum thermal_trip_type trip_type) { > >> - long trip_temp; > >> - > >> - tz->ops->get_trip_temp(tz, trip, &trip_temp); > >> - > >> - /* If we have not crossed the trip_temp, we do not care. */ > >> - if (tz->temperature < trip_temp) > >> - return; > >> - > >> if (tz->ops->notify) > >> tz->ops->notify(tz, trip, trip_type); > >> > >> @@ -437,14 +429,28 @@ static void update_temperature(struct > >> thermal_zone_device *tz) > >> mutex_unlock(&tz->lock); > >> } > >> > >> +static int thermal_zone_get_current_trip(struct thermal_zone_device > >> +*tz) { > >> + int trip; > >> + long trip_temp; > >> + > >> + for (trip = tz->trips - 1; trip > 0; trip--) { > >> + tz->ops->get_trip_temp(tz, trip, &trip_temp); > >> + if (tz->temperature > trip_temp) > >> + continue; > >> + } > >> + return trip; > >> +} > >> + > >> void thermal_zone_device_update(struct thermal_zone_device *tz) { > >> - int count; > >> + int trip; > >> > >> update_temperature(tz); > >> > >> - for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++) > >> - handle_thermal_trip(tz, count); > >> + trip = thermal_zone_get_current_trip(tz); > >> + > >> + handle_thermal_trip(tz, trip); > > > > Say, trip point 1 for thermal zone 0 is 60C, > > The system is running above 60C for somethime, > > thus the thermal_instance for this trip point is running at upper_limit. > > When the temperature suddenly drops below 60C, > > we still need to handle trip point 1 to deactivate it. > > > > > Okay, I understood. I missed the point that governor will handle a cooling > device within certain trip point described in thermal instance. > But still I don't think this is the best behaviour. Let say we were in trip > level 2nd and moving to trip level 1st then we should call governor twice for > applying trip 1 level.
Right. IMO, the governor is used to get the next proper cooling state for each referred thermal instance. So I think it is okay to call it twice. > Why don't we just call once? And whenever we call > handle_thermal_trip() with all trips, monitor_thermal_work() will also be > called > at the same time. hmm, what is your question about this? > I think we can make this work more clearly and intuitively. > let me think of it more,,, > sure. thanks, rui > Thanks, > Jonghwa. > > > Thanks, > > rui > >> } > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thermal_zone_device_update); > >> > >> -- > >> 1.7.9.5 > > > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
