From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jonghwa3.lee@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] thermal: add generic cpufreq cooling implementation Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:23:47 +0900 Message-ID: <505BCFB3.3040004@samsung.com> References: <0MAO00DCVFKI4NS0@ms2.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mailout4.samsung.com ([203.254.224.34]:48141 "EHLO mailout4.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755899Ab2IUCYB (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:24:01 -0400 In-reply-to: <0MAO00DCVFKI4NS0@ms2.samsung.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Amit Daniel Kachhap Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andrew Morton , Zhang Rui , Len Brown , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Hi, Amit, On 2012=B3=E2 08=BF=F9 16=C0=CF 20:41, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_coo= ling.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..66cbd52 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > @@ -0,0 +1,586 @@ > +/** > + * cpufreq_cooling_register - function to create cpufreq cooling de= vice. > + * @clip_cpus: cpumask of cpus where the frequency constraints will= happen. > + */ > +struct thermal_cooling_device *cpufreq_cooling_register( > + struct cpumask *clip_cpus) > +{ > + struct thermal_cooling_device *cool_dev; > + struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_dev =3D NULL; > + unsigned int cpufreq_dev_count =3D 0, min =3D 0, max =3D 0; > + char dev_name[THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH]; > + int ret =3D 0, id =3D 0, i; > + struct cpufreq_policy policy; > + ret =3D get_idr(&cpufreq_idr,&cpufreq_dev->id); > + if (ret) { > + kfree(cpufreq_dev); > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > + } > + > + sprintf(dev_name, "thermal-cpufreq-%d", cpufreq_dev->id); > + > + cool_dev =3D thermal_cooling_device_register(dev_name, cpufr= eq_dev, > +&cpufreq_cooling_ops); > + if (!cool_dev) { > + release_idr(&cpufreq_idr, cpufreq_dev->id); > + kfree(cpufreq_dev); > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > + } > + cpufreq_dev->id =3D id; Why is this needed? Should every cpufreq_dev instance's id be same for zero? It looks odd. And it also has problem which can be occurred when it release id during unregistering cpufreq_dev. I think it should keep the idr value taken before. > 1.7.1 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne= l" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html