Re: [PATCH] thermal: Hunt zero trip points thermal zones usage

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 5:08 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 6:59 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Some drivers are declaring a thermal zone without any thermal trip
> > points.
> >
> > On the other side, we are introducing the function
> > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() which provides an array of
> > generic thermal trip points. When all the drivers will be converted to
> > the generic trip points, keeping two functions will be useless.
> >
> > Most of the drivers are now using
> > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() with the generic trip
> > points. As soon as the remaining drivers are merged, the
> > thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() will be renamed to
> > thermal_zone_device_register().
>
> So why is this the first time I'm learning about this plan?
>
> > Obviously this renaming can only happen if there are no more user of
> > the thermal_zone_device_register() function.
> >
> > This change uses thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() with a NULL
> > parameter for the trip point array instead of
> > thermal_zone_device_register().
>
> And later it will be renamed to thermal_zone_device_register() again?
>
> Can we just stop confusing people this way?
>
> What would be wrong with changing both
> thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() and
> thermal_zone_device_register() together when we are ready?  And why
> can't the both be replaced with something line thermal_zone_register()
> doing all of the necessary things in one go?  Why do we have to make
> confusing and redundant changes?

Or you can define a thermal_register_tripless_zone() wrapper around
thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() and make the drivers in
question use that, and modify them just once.