Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal/core: Fix thermal trip cross point

[Lukasz Luba]

On 7/12/22 13:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 13:29, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > > @@ -511,8 +528,13 @@ void thermal_zone_device_update(struct 
> > > thermal_zone_device *tz,
> > >       tz->notify_event = event;
> > > -    for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
> > > -        handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
> > > +    if (tz->last_temperature <= tz->temperature) {
> > > +        for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
> > > +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
> > > +    } else {
> > > +        for (count = tz->prev_trip; count >= 0; count--)
> > > +            handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
> > > +    }
> >
> > In general the code look good. I have one question, though:
> > Is it always true that these trip points coming from the DT
> > and parsed in thermal_of_build_thermal_zone() populated by
> >      for_each_child_of_node(child, gchild) {
> >           thermal_of_populate_trip(gchild, &tz->trips[i++]);
> >
> > are always defined in right order in DT?
>
> Hmm, that is a good question. Even if the convention is to put the trip 
> point in the ascending order, I don't find any documentation telling it 
> is mandatory. Given that I don't feel particularly comfortable to assume 
> that is the case.
>
> Perhaps, it would make more sense to build a map of indexes telling the 
> order in the trip points and work with it instead.

Sounds a reliable way to move forward. Maybe you could just sort in the
right order those trip points in the thermal_of_build_thermal_zone()
in an additional patch to this series?
Than this patch could stay as is, because it looks good.