Re: [PATCH 2/5] thermal: gov_power_allocator: Refactor check_power_actors()

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

On 12/20/23 14:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 12:30 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Refactor check_power_actors() to make it possible for re-use in the
>> upcoming new callback.
> 
> I would say "In preparation for a subsequent change, rearrange
> check_power_actors()".

Agree, I'll use it.

>>
>> No intentional functional impact.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 10 ++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> index 785fff14223d..38e1e89ba10c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> @@ -581,8 +581,9 @@ static void allow_maximum_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, bool update)
>>    * power actor API. The warning should help to investigate the issue, which
>>    * could be e.g. lack of Energy Model for a given device.
>>    *
>> - * Return: 0 on success, -EINVAL if any cooling device does not implement
>> - * the power actor API.
>> + * Return number of cooling devices or -EINVAL if any cooling device does not
>> + * implement the power actor API. Return value 0 is also valid since cooling
>> + * devices might be attached later.
> 
> I would say "If all of the cooling devices currently attached to @tz
> implement the power actor API, return the number of them (which may be
> 0, because some cooling devices may be attached later).  Otherwise,
> return -EINVAL."
> 

Yes, I'll use that sentence as well.
Those will be in the next version (v3). Thanks!