[v1,2/5] ACPI: thermal: Drop redundant ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES symbol

From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Drop the ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES symbol which is redundant, because
ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES can be used directly instead of it without any
drawbacks and rename the ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS to
ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS to make the code a bit more consistent.

While at it, fix up some formatting white space used in the symbol
definitions.

No functional impact.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   13 ++++++-------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

On 5/30/2023 5:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Drop the ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES symbol which is redundant, because
> ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES can be used directly instead of it without any
> drawbacks and rename the ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS to
> ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS to make the code a bit more consistent.
>
> While at it, fix up some formatting white space used in the symbol
> definitions.
>
> No functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> @@ -238,12 +238,11 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode
>  #define ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE	BIT(3)
>  #define ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES	BIT(4)
>  
> -#define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS	(ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE)
> -#define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES	ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES
> +#define ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS	(ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE)
>  
> -#define ACPI_TRIPS_INIT      (ACPI_TRIPS_CRITICAL | ACPI_TRIPS_HOT |	\
> -			      ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE |	\
> -			      ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
> +#define ACPI_TRIPS_INIT		(ACPI_TRIPS_CRITICAL | ACPI_TRIPS_HOT | \
> +				 ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE | \
> +				 ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
>  
>  /*
>   * This exception is thrown out in two cases:
> @@ -906,13 +905,13 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct a
>  		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>  		break;
>  	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
> -		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
> +		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS);
>  		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>  		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>  						dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>  		break;
>  	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
> -		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
> +		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES);
>  		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>  		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>  						dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>

Looks good to me,

Reviewed-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@intel.com>

Also I wonder, whether I should wait with another revision of my patchset 'Remove .notify', since it will
obviously need to be rebased on top of that changes.

>

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 9:50 AM Wilczynski, Michal
<michal.wilczynski@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/30/2023 5:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > Drop the ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES symbol which is redundant, because
> > ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES can be used directly instead of it without any
> > drawbacks and rename the ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS to
> > ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS to make the code a bit more consistent.
> >
> > While at it, fix up some formatting white space used in the symbol
> > definitions.
> >
> > No functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   13 ++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> > @@ -238,12 +238,11 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode
> >  #define ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE    BIT(3)
> >  #define ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES   BIT(4)
> >
> > -#define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS        (ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE)
> > -#define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES   ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES
> > +#define ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS        (ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE)
> >
> > -#define ACPI_TRIPS_INIT      (ACPI_TRIPS_CRITICAL | ACPI_TRIPS_HOT | \
> > -                           ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE |  \
> > -                           ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
> > +#define ACPI_TRIPS_INIT              (ACPI_TRIPS_CRITICAL | ACPI_TRIPS_HOT | \
> > +                              ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE | \
> > +                              ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
> >
> >  /*
> >   * This exception is thrown out in two cases:
> > @@ -906,13 +905,13 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct a
> >               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >               break;
> >       case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
> > -             acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
> > +             acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_THRESHOLDS);
> >               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >               acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
> >                                               dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
> >               break;
> >       case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
> > -             acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
> > +             acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES);
> >               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >               acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
> >                                               dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
> >
>
> Looks good to me,
>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@intel.com>
>
> Also I wonder, whether I should wait with another revision of my patchset 'Remove .notify', since it will
> obviously need to be rebased on top of that changes.

No need to wait, I can deal with merge conflicts just fine.