drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 24 +++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
The class_create() call has been deprecated in favor of class_register()
as the driver core now allows for a struct class to be in read-only
memory. Change thermal_class to be a const struct class and drop the
class_create() call.
Compile tested only.
Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Jori Koolstra <jkoolstra@xs4all.nl>
---
drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
index 28a20d4b475c..36220113ca8e 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
@@ -889,7 +889,9 @@ static void thermal_unbind_cdev_from_trip(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
kfree(pos);
}
-static struct class *thermal_class __ro_after_init;
+static const struct class thermal_class = {
+ .name = "thermal"
+};
static inline
void print_bind_err_msg(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
@@ -973,7 +975,7 @@ thermal_cooling_device_alloc(const char *type, const struct thermal_cooling_devi
!ops->set_cur_state)
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
- if (!thermal_class)
+ if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
cdev = kzalloc_obj(*cdev);
@@ -1010,7 +1012,7 @@ int thermal_cooling_device_add(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev, void *devdat
mutex_init(&cdev->lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cdev->thermal_instances);
cdev->updated = false;
- cdev->device.class = thermal_class;
+ cdev->device.class = &thermal_class;
cdev->device.release = thermal_cdev_release;
device_initialize(&cdev->device);
cdev->devdata = devdata;
@@ -1447,7 +1449,7 @@ thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(const char *type,
if (polling_delay && passive_delay > polling_delay)
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
- if (!thermal_class)
+ if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
tz = kzalloc_flex(*tz, trips, num_trips);
@@ -1483,7 +1485,7 @@ thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(const char *type,
if (!tz->ops.critical)
tz->ops.critical = thermal_zone_device_critical;
- tz->device.class = thermal_class;
+ tz->device.class = &thermal_class;
tz->device.release = thermal_zone_device_release;
tz->devdata = devdata;
tz->num_trips = num_trips;
@@ -1745,7 +1747,7 @@ static void __thermal_pm_prepare(void)
void thermal_pm_prepare(void)
{
- if (!thermal_class)
+ if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
return;
__thermal_pm_prepare();
@@ -1776,7 +1778,7 @@ void thermal_pm_complete(void)
{
struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
- if (!thermal_class)
+ if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
return;
guard(mutex)(&thermal_list_lock);
@@ -1789,7 +1791,6 @@ void thermal_pm_complete(void)
static int __init thermal_init(void)
{
- struct class *tc;
int result;
thermal_debug_init();
@@ -1808,13 +1809,10 @@ static int __init thermal_init(void)
if (result)
goto unregister_governors;
- tc = class_create("thermal");
- if (IS_ERR(tc)) {
- result = PTR_ERR(tc);
+ result = class_register(&thermal_class);
+ if (result)
goto unregister_governors;
- }
- thermal_class = tc;
return 0;
unregister_governors:
--
2.55.0
On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 8:17 AM Jori Koolstra <jkoolstra@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> The class_create() call has been deprecated in favor of class_register()
> as the driver core now allows for a struct class to be in read-only
> memory. Change thermal_class to be a const struct class and drop the
> class_create() call.
This has been deliberately changed the other way around not too long
ago, in commit
34f54003643e thermal/core: Allocate the thermal class dynamically
and it was then argued that it would be better to allocate the class
dynamically.
You seem to have a differing opinion.
Is there any plan to remove class_create() from the kernel? If there
isn't, I'd rather stop this back-and-forth dance and leave the code
as-is.
> Compile tested only.
That is, not tested.
> Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jori Koolstra <jkoolstra@xs4all.nl>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> index 28a20d4b475c..36220113ca8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> @@ -889,7 +889,9 @@ static void thermal_unbind_cdev_from_trip(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> kfree(pos);
> }
>
> -static struct class *thermal_class __ro_after_init;
> +static const struct class thermal_class = {
> + .name = "thermal"
> +};
>
> static inline
> void print_bind_err_msg(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> @@ -973,7 +975,7 @@ thermal_cooling_device_alloc(const char *type, const struct thermal_cooling_devi
> !ops->set_cur_state)
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> - if (!thermal_class)
> + if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
Any chance to reduce the overhead of this check (in all places where
it is done)?
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>
> cdev = kzalloc_obj(*cdev);
> @@ -1010,7 +1012,7 @@ int thermal_cooling_device_add(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev, void *devdat
> mutex_init(&cdev->lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cdev->thermal_instances);
> cdev->updated = false;
> - cdev->device.class = thermal_class;
> + cdev->device.class = &thermal_class;
> cdev->device.release = thermal_cdev_release;
> device_initialize(&cdev->device);
> cdev->devdata = devdata;
> @@ -1447,7 +1449,7 @@ thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(const char *type,
> if (polling_delay && passive_delay > polling_delay)
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> - if (!thermal_class)
> + if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>
> tz = kzalloc_flex(*tz, trips, num_trips);
> @@ -1483,7 +1485,7 @@ thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(const char *type,
> if (!tz->ops.critical)
> tz->ops.critical = thermal_zone_device_critical;
>
> - tz->device.class = thermal_class;
> + tz->device.class = &thermal_class;
> tz->device.release = thermal_zone_device_release;
> tz->devdata = devdata;
> tz->num_trips = num_trips;
> @@ -1745,7 +1747,7 @@ static void __thermal_pm_prepare(void)
>
> void thermal_pm_prepare(void)
> {
> - if (!thermal_class)
> + if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
> return;
>
> __thermal_pm_prepare();
> @@ -1776,7 +1778,7 @@ void thermal_pm_complete(void)
> {
> struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
>
> - if (!thermal_class)
> + if (!class_is_registered(&thermal_class))
> return;
>
> guard(mutex)(&thermal_list_lock);
> @@ -1789,7 +1791,6 @@ void thermal_pm_complete(void)
>
> static int __init thermal_init(void)
> {
> - struct class *tc;
> int result;
>
> thermal_debug_init();
> @@ -1808,13 +1809,10 @@ static int __init thermal_init(void)
> if (result)
> goto unregister_governors;
>
> - tc = class_create("thermal");
> - if (IS_ERR(tc)) {
> - result = PTR_ERR(tc);
> + result = class_register(&thermal_class);
> + if (result)
> goto unregister_governors;
> - }
>
> - thermal_class = tc;
> return 0;
>
> unregister_governors:
> --
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 06:09:33PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 8:17 AM Jori Koolstra <jkoolstra@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > The class_create() call has been deprecated in favor of class_register() > > as the driver core now allows for a struct class to be in read-only > > memory. Change thermal_class to be a const struct class and drop the > > class_create() call. > > This has been deliberately changed the other way around not too long > ago, in commit > > 34f54003643e thermal/core: Allocate the thermal class dynamically > > and it was then argued that it would be better to allocate the class > dynamically. > > You seem to have a differing opinion. > > Is there any plan to remove class_create() from the kernel? If there > isn't, I'd rather stop this back-and-forth dance and leave the code > as-is. Yes, class_create() is going away. I didn't notice commit 34f54003643e, but that's the wrong thing to do here. We should just revert that instead. thanks, greg k-h
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 6:56 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 06:09:33PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 8:17 AM Jori Koolstra <jkoolstra@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > The class_create() call has been deprecated in favor of class_register() > > > as the driver core now allows for a struct class to be in read-only > > > memory. Change thermal_class to be a const struct class and drop the > > > class_create() call. > > > > This has been deliberately changed the other way around not too long > > ago, in commit > > > > 34f54003643e thermal/core: Allocate the thermal class dynamically > > > > and it was then argued that it would be better to allocate the class > > dynamically. > > > > You seem to have a differing opinion. > > > > Is there any plan to remove class_create() from the kernel? If there > > isn't, I'd rather stop this back-and-forth dance and leave the code > > as-is. > > Yes, class_create() is going away. Fair enough. > I didn't notice commit 34f54003643e, but that's the wrong thing to do here. > We should just revert that instead. OK, let me send a revert of it. Thanks!
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 06:56:05PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 06:09:33PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 8:17 AM Jori Koolstra <jkoolstra@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > The class_create() call has been deprecated in favor of class_register() > > > as the driver core now allows for a struct class to be in read-only > > > memory. Change thermal_class to be a const struct class and drop the > > > class_create() call. > > > > This has been deliberately changed the other way around not too long > > ago, in commit > > > > 34f54003643e thermal/core: Allocate the thermal class dynamically > > > > and it was then argued that it would be better to allocate the class > > dynamically. > > > > You seem to have a differing opinion. > > > > Is there any plan to remove class_create() from the kernel? If there > > isn't, I'd rather stop this back-and-forth dance and leave the code > > as-is. > > Yes, class_create() is going away. I didn't notice commit 34f54003643e, > but that's the wrong thing to do here. We should just revert that > instead. And we are down to only a very few callers of that function. I'll sweep the tree again after -rc1 is out, apply any pending patches, and drop the function entirely then. thanks, greg k-h
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.