From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946149Ab3BHIyS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:54:18 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:28123 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946115Ab3BHIyR (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:54:17 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,628,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="259519746" From: "R, Durgadoss" To: "Zhang, Rui" CC: "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "eduardo.valentin@ti.com" , "hongbo.zhang@linaro.org" , "wni@nvidia.com" Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/8] Thermal: Create zone level APIs Thread-Topic: [PATCH 2/8] Thermal: Create zone level APIs Thread-Index: AQHOA47ffF4wEFgFDEewd+yx4aZWdJhvRH0AgABm+vA= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: <4D68720C2E767A4AA6A8796D42C8EB5927AAB1@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <1360061183-14137-1-git-send-email-durgadoss.r@intel.com> <1360061183-14137-3-git-send-email-durgadoss.r@intel.com> <1360311092.2242.28.camel@rzhang1-mobl4> In-Reply-To: <1360311092.2242.28.camel@rzhang1-mobl4> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.223.10.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r188sIhP002527 Hi Rui, > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhang, Rui > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:42 PM > To: R, Durgadoss > Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > eduardo.valentin@ti.com; hongbo.zhang@linaro.org; wni@nvidia.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Thermal: Create zone level APIs > > On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 16:16 +0530, Durgadoss R wrote: > > This patch adds a new thermal_zone structure to > > thermal.h. Also, adds zone level APIs to the thermal > > framework. > > [snip.] > > + > > +struct thermal_sensor *get_sensor_by_name(const char *name) > > +{ > > + struct thermal_sensor *pos; > > + struct thermal_sensor *ts = NULL; > > + > > + mutex_lock(&sensor_list_lock); > > + for_each_thermal_sensor(pos) { > > + if (!strnicmp(pos->name, name, THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH)) > { > > + ts = pos; > > + break; > > this function depends on the assumption that all the sensor names are > unique. > thus I prefer to go through all the list and return -EINVAL if duplicate > names found, because in this case, the pointer returned may be not the > sensor we want to get. Yes, I agree with you. But I prefer having this check in the register API itself, which then will not allow duplicates. The reason being, we use this get* API (comparatively) a lot more than the register APIs. And putting this check in the register APIs means doing this check only once. Let me know what you think. And the same for cooling devices too. Thanks, Durga {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I