This reverts commit 2dc2f760052da4925482ecdcdc5c94d4a599153c.
As discussed in the thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
the feature provided by commits 2dc2f760052da and 6f73862fabd93 is
actually already handled by the thermal framework via the cooling
device state aggregation, thus all this code is pointless.
No conflict happened when reverting the patch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Vadim Pasternak <[email protected]>
---
.../ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core_thermal.c | 23 ++++---------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core_thermal.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core_thermal.c
index 05f54bd982c0..f5751242653b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core_thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core_thermal.c
@@ -345,7 +345,8 @@ static int mlxsw_thermal_set_trip_hyst(struct thermal_zone_device *tzdev,
static int mlxsw_thermal_trend_get(struct thermal_zone_device *tzdev,
int trip, enum thermal_trend *trend)
{
- struct mlxsw_thermal *thermal = tzdev->devdata;
+ struct mlxsw_thermal_module *tz = tzdev->devdata;
+ struct mlxsw_thermal *thermal = tz->parent;
if (trip < 0 || trip >= MLXSW_THERMAL_NUM_TRIPS)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -537,22 +538,6 @@ mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_hyst_set(struct thermal_zone_device *tzdev, int trip,
return 0;
}
-static int mlxsw_thermal_module_trend_get(struct thermal_zone_device *tzdev,
- int trip, enum thermal_trend *trend)
-{
- struct mlxsw_thermal_module *tz = tzdev->devdata;
- struct mlxsw_thermal *thermal = tz->parent;
-
- if (trip < 0 || trip >= MLXSW_THERMAL_NUM_TRIPS)
- return -EINVAL;
-
- if (tzdev == thermal->tz_highest_dev)
- return 1;
-
- *trend = THERMAL_TREND_STABLE;
- return 0;
-}
-
static struct thermal_zone_device_ops mlxsw_thermal_module_ops = {
.bind = mlxsw_thermal_module_bind,
.unbind = mlxsw_thermal_module_unbind,
@@ -562,7 +547,7 @@ static struct thermal_zone_device_ops mlxsw_thermal_module_ops = {
.set_trip_temp = mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_temp_set,
.get_trip_hyst = mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_hyst_get,
.set_trip_hyst = mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_hyst_set,
- .get_trend = mlxsw_thermal_module_trend_get,
+ .get_trend = mlxsw_thermal_trend_get,
};
static int mlxsw_thermal_gearbox_temp_get(struct thermal_zone_device *tzdev,
@@ -599,7 +584,7 @@ static struct thermal_zone_device_ops mlxsw_thermal_gearbox_ops = {
.set_trip_temp = mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_temp_set,
.get_trip_hyst = mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_hyst_get,
.set_trip_hyst = mlxsw_thermal_module_trip_hyst_set,
- .get_trend = mlxsw_thermal_module_trend_get,
+ .get_trend = mlxsw_thermal_trend_get,
};
static int mlxsw_thermal_get_max_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
--
2.34.1
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:10:31AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> This reverts commit 2dc2f760052da4925482ecdcdc5c94d4a599153c.
>
> As discussed in the thread:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> the feature provided by commits 2dc2f760052da and 6f73862fabd93 is
> actually already handled by the thermal framework via the cooling
> device state aggregation, thus all this code is pointless.
>
> No conflict happened when reverting the patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Vadim Pasternak <[email protected]>
Daniel, the intention is to send these patches to mainline as part of
your 6.1 pull request?
I discussed it with Vadim yesterday and we do not expect changes in the
file during the current cycle so this is OK as far as we are concerned,
but I believe this will also need an ack from one of the netdev
maintainers.
Thanks
Hi Ido,
On 15/08/2022 13:47, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:10:31AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> This reverts commit 2dc2f760052da4925482ecdcdc5c94d4a599153c.
>>
>> As discussed in the thread:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>>
>> the feature provided by commits 2dc2f760052da and 6f73862fabd93 is
>> actually already handled by the thermal framework via the cooling
>> device state aggregation, thus all this code is pointless.
>>
>> No conflict happened when reverting the patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
>> Tested-by: Vadim Pasternak <[email protected]>
>
> Daniel, the intention is to send these patches to mainline as part of
> your 6.1 pull request?
Yes, I told Vadim I prefer the change to go through my tree because it
is part of a rework of the thermal core internals which impact more drivers.
> I discussed it with Vadim yesterday and we do not expect changes in the
> file during the current cycle so this is OK as far as we are concerned,
> but I believe this will also need an ack from one of the netdev
> maintainers.
Sure.
Dave, Eric,
Is that fine if the changes go through my tree ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog