Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 19:37:07 -0700
From:   Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal-SoC management changes for v5.2-rc1
Message-ID: <20190524023705.GD1936@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20190516044313.GA17751@localhost.localdomain>
 <CAHk-=wiaO_8SiEB9QM3vOTniiT67K6CBH0uHJ82-Dp_+6kxH3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <cd06dc28-1076-259a-ba94-bad116771da8@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cd06dc28-1076-259a-ba94-bad116771da8@roeck-us.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:55:33AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 5/16/19 8:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:43 PM Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>- thermal core has a new devm_* API for registering cooling devices, thanks to Guenter R.
> >>   I took the entire series, that is why you see changes on drivers/hwmon in this pull.
> >
> >This clashed badly with commit 6b1ec4789fb1 ("hwmon: (pwm-fan) Add RPM
> >support via external interrupt"), which added a timer to the pwm-fan
> >handling.
> >
> >In particular, that timer now needed the same kind of cleanup changes,
> >and I'd like you guys (particularly Guenther, who was involved on both
> >sides) to double-check my merge.
> >
> >The way I solved it was to just make the pwm_fan_pwm_disable()
> >callback do both the pwm_diable() _and_ the del_timer_sync() on the
> >new timer. That seemed to be the simplest solution that meshed with
> >the new devm cleanup model, but while I build-tested the result, I
> >obviously did no actual use testing. And maybe there's some reason why
> >that approach is flawed.
> >
> >Guenther?
> 
> Sorry for the trouble. Looks like I did too much cleanup this time around.
> 
> Looks ok. I'll have to send a follow-up patch - we should check the
> return value of devm_add_action_or_reset(). No idea why I didn't do that
> in this series. I'll do that after the commit window closes (and after
> I am back from vacation).

OK... From what I could tell, looked fine from a thermal perspective.

> 
> Thanks a lot for sorting this out.
> 
> Guenter