Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: intel: int340x: Allow temperature override

["Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 10:20 -0700, srinivas pandruvada wrote:
> > >  
> > >  int proc_thermal_ptc_add(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct
> > > proc_thermal_device *proc_priv)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -230,10 +289,13 @@ int proc_thermal_ptc_add(struct pci_dev
> > > *pdev,
> > > struct proc_thermal_device *proc_
> > >  
> > >  		for (i = 0; i < PTC_MAX_INSTANCES; i++) {
> > >  			ptc_instance[i].offset = ptc_offsets[i];
> > > +			ptc_instance[i].pdev = pdev;
> > >  			ptc_create_groups(pdev, i,
> > > &ptc_instance[i]);
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	ptc_create_debugfs();
> > > +
> > 
> > should we create the debugfs only when PROC_THERMAL_FEATURE_PTC is
> > set?
> 
> This function is only called when
>  if (feature_mask & PROC_THERMAL_FEATURE_PTC) {
> }
> 
> 
right, then the
   if (proc_priv->mmio_feature_mask & PROC_THERMAL_FEATURE_PTC)
check in proc_thermal_ptc_add() is redundant.


BTW, in proc_thermal_mmio_add() and proc_thermal_mmio_remove(), we

1. call the rapl/ptc/rfim/wt_req/wt_hint .add() functions with the
feature mask check in proc_thermal_mmio_add()

2. call the .remove() functions without the feature mask check in failure
cases in proc_thermal_mmio_add().

3. call the .remove() functions with feature mask check in
proc_thermal_mmio_remove()

This is inconsistent. If you agree, I'd like to propose a cleanup patch
to make them work in a unified way.

thanks,
rui