Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] thermal: More separation between the core and drivers

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

Hi Daniel,

On Monday, March 25, 2024 2:33:27 PM CET Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> thank you for this series.
> 
> It has been reported a regression with commit cf3986f8c01d3. I'm 
> investigating and confirming it. If it is the case a revert may impact 
> this series.

Sure.

Can you please give me a pointer to a BZ or e-mail thread where this is
being handled?

Thank you!


> 
> On 25/03/2024 14:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> > 
> > This is an update of
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/4558384.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher/
> > 
> > which is a resend of the series with one extra patch added.  That extra patch
> > is related to
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20240306085428.88011-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org/
> > 
> > The original description of the first two patches still applies:
> > 
> >> Patch [1/2] is based on the observation that the threshold field in struct
> >> thermal_trip really should be core-internal and to make that happen it
> >> introduces a wrapper structure around struct thermal_trip for internal
> >> use in the core.
> >>
> >> Patch [2/2] moves the definition of the new structure and the struct
> >> thermal_zone_device one to a local header file in the core to enforce
> >> more separation between the core and drivers.
> >>
> >> The patches are not expected to introduce any observable differences in
> >> behavior, so please let me know if you see any of that.
> > 
> 
>