On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:58 AM Daniel Lezcano
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 28/06/2019 11:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:02 PM Daniel Lezcano
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
extra variable in each driver using this function.

Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.

Because the cpufreq_cooling_unregister() function uses the policy to
unregister itself. The only purpose of the cooling device pointer is
to unregister the cpu cooling device.

As there is no more need of this pointer, remove it.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <redacted>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

This doesn't apply for me.

Care to rebase it on top of the Linus' tree?

Sure but the patch depends on 1/3 which is in bleeding edge. Shall I
rebase the 3 patches on v5.2-rc6 and resend ?

You can do that.

Alternatively, you can rebase on top of my linux-next branch.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel