Re: [PATCH 5/6] thermal: Only set passive_delay for forced passivecooling

From: Matthew Garrett
Date: Wed Aug 26 2009 - 12:25:51 EST

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Setting polling_delay is useless as passive_delay has priority,
> so the value shown in proc isn't the actual polling delay. It
> also gives the impression to the user that he can change the
> polling interval through proc, while in fact he can't.
> Also, unset passive_delay when the forced passive trip point is
> unbound to allow polling to be disabled.
> Signed-off-by: Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>

I'll look over this - I seem to remember having some reason to set that,
but it escapes me now.

Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at