From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v4.17-rc1 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:12:39 +0200 Message-ID: <2093381.eDLEWQi9DB@amdc3058> References: <1523436077.16235.5.camel@intel.com> <3b41052a-233d-9992-223a-d16f48295905@linaro.org> <10298074.ogKH1ypqfx@amdc3058> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <10298074.ogKH1ypqfx@amdc3058> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Linux PM list , "Li, Philip" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, April 13, 2018 12:41:18 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Friday, April 13, 2018 12:30:04 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > On 13/04/2018 11:28, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > >>> It is okay to return 0 because this code-path (the default one) will be > > >>> never hit by the driver (probe makes sure of it) - the default case is > > >>> here is just to silence compilation errors.. > > >> > > >> The init function is making sure cal_type is one or another. Can you fix > > >> it correctly by replacing the 'switch' by a 'if' instead of adding dead > > >> branches to please gcc? > > >> > > >> if (data->cal_type == TYPE_TWO_POINT_TRIMMING) { > > >> return ...; > > >> } > > >> > > >> return ...; > > > > > > I'm not the one that added this switch statement (it has been there since > > > 2011) and I would be happy to remove it. > > > > Actually the switch statement was fine until the cleanup. > > I don't see how it was fine before as the driver has never used the default > case (always used TYPE_ONE_POINT_TRIMMING or TYPE_TWO_POINT_TRIMMING). > > Could you please explain this more? > > > > However could we please defer > > > this to v4.17 and merge the current set of Exynos thermal fixes/cleanups > > > (they simplify the driver a lot and make ground for future changes)? > > > > Regarding the latest comment, this can be fixed properly by 'return' (or > > whatever you want which does not get around of gcc warnings). > > Do you mean that you want the patch with switch statement removal? > > Is incremental fix OK or do you want something else? Danial has already posted it, I hope the fix is fine with you. Also sorry for the delay with handling issue - I was on holiday last two days and for some reason I was under (wrong) impression that the previous fix has been in thermal tree (so I was quite surprised today reading this mail thread). Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics