Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal/core: Fix thermal trip cross point

[Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>]

On 7/12/22 14:06, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 14:40, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/22 13:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2022 13:29, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>> @@ -511,8 +528,13 @@ void thermal_zone_device_update(struct 
>>>>> thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>>>>       tz->notify_event = event;
>>>>> -    for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>>>>> -        handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>>>>> +    if (tz->last_temperature <= tz->temperature) {
>>>>> +        for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>>>>> +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>>>>> +    } else {
>>>>> +        for (count = tz->prev_trip; count >= 0; count--)
>>>>> +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>
>>>> In general the code look good. I have one question, though:
>>>> Is it always true that these trip points coming from the DT
>>>> and parsed in thermal_of_build_thermal_zone() populated by
>>>>      for_each_child_of_node(child, gchild) {
>>>>           thermal_of_populate_trip(gchild, &tz->trips[i++]);
>>>>
>>>> are always defined in right order in DT?
>>>
>>> Hmm, that is a good question. Even if the convention is to put the 
>>> trip point in the ascending order, I don't find any documentation 
>>> telling it is mandatory. Given that I don't feel particularly 
>>> comfortable to assume that is the case.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, it would make more sense to build a map of indexes telling 
>>> the order in the trip points and work with it instead.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sounds a reliable way to move forward. Maybe you could just sort in the
>> right order those trip points in the thermal_of_build_thermal_zone()
>> in an additional patch to this series?
>> Than this patch could stay as is, because it looks go
> 
> Unfortunately, there is the manual setup as well as the ACPI.
> 
> 
> 

I see. OK, so continue to solve it completely. I can review your next
version.

Regards,
Lukasz