Re: [RFC] the generic thermal layer enhancement

Zhang Rui
2012-05-31T06:13:11Z

> >> > G5. unify active cooling and passive cooling code
> >> >
> >> > If G4 and G5 are resolved, a new problem to me is that there is no
> >> > difference between passive cooling and active cooling except the
> >> > cooling policy.
> >
> > OK...
> >
> >> > Then we can share the same code for both active and passive cooling.
> >> > maybe something like:
> >> >
> >> > case THERMAL_TRIP_ACTIVE:
> >> > case THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE:
> >> > ...
> >> > tz->ops->get_trend();
> >
> > Would the get_trend take into account if we are cooling with active or passive
> > cooling device?
> >
> >> > if (trend == HEATING)
> >> > cdev->ops->set_cur_state(cdev, cur_state++);
> >> > else if (trend == COOLING)
> >> > cdev->ops->set_cur_state(cdev, cur_state--);
> >> > break;
> >
> > I believe we should have something for temperature stabilization there as well.
> I also agree that thermal stablization is important. I have observed
> that too much state change is happening around the trip point. But yes
> the trend callback may take care of this and set the COOLING trend
> different from HEATING trend.

that's why Matthew and I are asking you to try to fit into the current
passive cooling implementation first, as the current algorithm is really
a good one, if you can make use of it.
.get_trend() is just a backup for this.

thanks,
rui