Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5d513646-a917-b969-b2d2-9d5f4e0e6f4d@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:40:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal/core: Fix thermal trip cross point
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc:     quic_manafm@quicinc.com, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@kernel.org>, rafael@kernel.org
References: <20220708183210.1334839-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <20220708183210.1334839-3-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <6ce87fbb-1460-503b-f1f1-8cf53e702cdf@arm.com>
 <2d680cd9-9e97-e06c-55c2-2a3a1504488e@linaro.org>
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <2d680cd9-9e97-e06c-55c2-2a3a1504488e@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 7/12/22 13:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 13:29, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>>> @@ -511,8 +528,13 @@ void thermal_zone_device_update(struct 
>>> thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>>       tz->notify_event = event;
>>> -    for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>>> -        handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>>> +    if (tz->last_temperature <= tz->temperature) {
>>> +        for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>>> +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        for (count = tz->prev_trip; count >= 0; count--)
>>> +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>>> +    }
>>
>> In general the code look good. I have one question, though:
>> Is it always true that these trip points coming from the DT
>> and parsed in thermal_of_build_thermal_zone() populated by
>>      for_each_child_of_node(child, gchild) {
>>           thermal_of_populate_trip(gchild, &tz->trips[i++]);
>>
>> are always defined in right order in DT?
> 
> Hmm, that is a good question. Even if the convention is to put the trip 
> point in the ascending order, I don't find any documentation telling it 
> is mandatory. Given that I don't feel particularly comfortable to assume 
> that is the case.
> 
> Perhaps, it would make more sense to build a map of indexes telling the 
> order in the trip points and work with it instead.
> 
> 

Sounds a reliable way to move forward. Maybe you could just sort in the
right order those trip points in the thermal_of_build_thermal_zone()
in an additional patch to this series?
Than this patch could stay as is, because it looks good.