On 18-04-19, 09:04, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 18 Apr 2019 at 09:23:23 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 17-04-19, 10:43, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > static struct thermal_cooling_device *
> > > __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
> > > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u32 capacitance)
> > > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > + struct em_perf_domain *em)
> > > {
> >
> > > + if (em_is_sane(cpufreq_cdev, em)) {
> > > + cpufreq_cdev->em = em;
> > > cooling_ops = &cpufreq_power_cooling_ops;
> > > - } else {
> > > + } else if (policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED) {
> > > cooling_ops = &cpufreq_cooling_ops;
> > > + } else {
> > > + WARN(1, "cpu_cooling: no valid frequency table found\n");
> >
> > Well the frequency table is valid, isn't it ?
>
> True ...
>
> > Maybe something like: "cpu_cooling doesn't support unsorted frequency
> > tables" ?
>
> Right, otherwise I guess that could be confused with the check on
> cpu_table_count_valid_entries() above. And while I'm thinking about it
> perhaps WARN is a bit too much here ? We can handle the error safely so
> pr_err() should be enough ?
Hmm, I would keep the WARN as it is hard to miss it compared to a
simple pr_err.
--
viresh
