Re: [PATCH v1 04/10] ACPI: processor: thermal: Use thermal_cooling_device_create()

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 12:28:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 10:15 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Armin Wolf wrote:
> > > Am 11.09.26 um 20:06 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 6:47 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 06:36:28PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 6:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 03:02:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

...

> > > > > > > > Is any user space ABI breakage expected as an outcome of this change?
> > > > > > > Not really.
> > > > > > Maybe makes sense to state this clearly in the cover letter?
> > > > > I guess you specifically mean the manually created symbolic links in
> > > > > sysfs that get removed.
> > > > >
> > > > > If so, I'm not aware of anyone using them for anything, but the lack
> > > > > of observation is not proof of nonexistence.
> > > > Yes, I refer to the changes in the sysfs layout / presence / absence.
> > >
> > > AFAIK those custom sysfs attributes are not even documented under Documentation/ABI, and
> > > thermald also does not seem to use them. I thus think we can safely remove them.
> >
> > There is Debian source code browser (that covers hundreds of OSS projects) [1],
> > have you tried to seek any matches there? Otherwise the assumption that nobody
> > uses them might be wrong even if they were never documented.
> >
> > [1]: https://codesearch.debian.net/
> 
> It is mostly relevant whether or not they are used by someone today
> and not whether or not they have ever been used at all.

Yes, my point is if there is no use there, it will be a very good justification
to assume that no-one use that.

> We'll find out.

Sure. Sooner or later :-)

> If anyone complains and they are unable to cope with that, adding
> "thermal_cooling" back should not be a problem (although I'd rather
> not do it unless absolutely necessary).

Agreed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko