Commit be169578 authored by Frans Pop's avatar Frans Pop Committed by james toy

Setting polling_delay is useless as passive_delay has priority, so the

value shown in proc isn't the actual polling delay.  It also gives the
impression to the user that he can change the polling interval through
proc, while in fact he can't.

Also, unset passive_delay when the forced passive trip point is unbound to
allow polling to be disabled.
Signed-off-by: default avatarFrans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Acked-by: default avatarMatthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
parent c2ae8ada
......@@ -241,6 +241,8 @@ passive_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
cdev);
}
mutex_unlock(&thermal_list_lock);
if (!tz->passive_delay)
tz->passive_delay = 1000;
} else if (!state && tz->forced_passive) {
mutex_lock(&thermal_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(cdev, &thermal_cdev_list, node) {
......@@ -251,17 +253,12 @@ passive_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
cdev);
}
mutex_unlock(&thermal_list_lock);
tz->passive_delay = 0;
}
tz->tc1 = 1;
tz->tc2 = 1;
if (!tz->passive_delay)
tz->passive_delay = 1000;
if (!tz->polling_delay)
tz->polling_delay = 10000;
tz->forced_passive = state;
thermal_zone_device_update(tz);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment