From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] thermal: Only set passive_delay for forced passive cooling Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:25:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20090826162537.GC15868@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1251303445-25317-1-git-send-email-elendil@planet.nl> <1251303445-25317-6-git-send-email-elendil@planet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1251303445-25317-6-git-send-email-elendil@planet.nl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Frans Pop Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zhang Rui List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > Setting polling_delay is useless as passive_delay has priority, > so the value shown in proc isn't the actual polling delay. It > also gives the impression to the user that he can change the > polling interval through proc, while in fact he can't. > > Also, unset passive_delay when the forced passive trip point is > unbound to allow polling to be disabled. > > Signed-off-by: Frans Pop > Cc: Matthew Garrett > Cc: Zhang Rui I'll look over this - I seem to remember having some reason to set that, but it escapes me now. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org