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 13:21:45 +0200 Message-ID: <5312146.KITRp36PIx@amdc3058> References: <1523436077.16235.5.camel@intel.com> <10298074.ogKH1ypqfx@amdc3058> <2093381.eDLEWQi9DB@amdc3058> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <2093381.eDLEWQi9DB@amdc3058> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano , Eduardo Valentin Cc: Zhang Rui , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Linux PM list , "Li, Philip" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, April 13, 2018 01:12:39 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > 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. should have been: Eduardo: Daniel has already posted it, I hope the fix is fine with you. (& sorry for the typo) > 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