Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-210448-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5794974.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher> <2337425.ElGaqSPkdT@kreacher>
 <dd446bf6-05ca-4861-b3b1-f113c3528f13@linaro.org> <CAJZ5v0jku1tptD3O=x-rptgUWGQFOQT-U3rsxk9k4XXsyeq3Kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ca6f4db-a7cc-4f47-b626-51daf7175885@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <1ca6f4db-a7cc-4f47-b626-51daf7175885@linaro.org>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:35:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h1OdEmrQr1EQz6ucX4cA65W1BmjS8pSRnVPuVcrCCAAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] thermal/debugfs: Do not extend mitigation episodes
 beyond system resume
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, 
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:39=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2024 13:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:28=E2=80=AFAM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28/05/2024 16:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Because thermal zone handling by the thermal core is started from
> >>> scratch during resume from system-wide suspend, prevent the debug
> >>> code from extending mitigation episodes beyond that point by ending
> >>> the mitigation episode currently in progress, if any, for each therma=
l
> >>> zone.
> >>
> >> Why it is done at resume time and not at suspend time ?
> >
> > Because it is related to thermal_zone_device_init() which also runs at
> > the resume time, so IMV it's better to keep these two pieces together.
> >
> > Why would it be better to run this during suspend?
>
>  From a logical point of view, it makes more sense to cancel something
> at suspend time rather than resume. That prevents future readers to be
> puzzled by an action done in an unexpected place.
>
> Technically speaking there is no difference if it is done during suspend
> or resume. Well... we want to prevent actions to be done at resume time
> in order to not increase the resume duration but I'm not sure this code
> is doing a big difference.
>
> If you want to keep it as is, feel free to add my:
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

I will, thank you!

And thanks for all of the other ACKs.