Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] dpll: add actual frequency monitoring callback ops

[Ivan Vecera]

On 3/26/26 6:48 PM, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> On 3/26/26 12:21 PM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> > On 25/03/2026 19:39, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> >
> > > +static int dpll_msg_add_actual_freq(struct sk_buff *msg, struct 
> > > dpll_pin *pin,
> > > +                    struct dpll_pin_ref *ref,
> > > +                    struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > > +{
> > > +    const struct dpll_device_ops *dev_ops = dpll_device_ops(ref->dpll);
> > > +    const struct dpll_pin_ops *ops = dpll_pin_ops(ref);
> > > +    struct dpll_device *dpll = ref->dpll;
> > > +    enum dpll_feature_state state;
> > > +    u64 actual_freq;
> > > +    int ret;
> > > +
> > > +    if (!ops->actual_freq_get)
> > > +        return 0;
> > > +    if (dev_ops->freq_monitor_get) {
> > > +        ret = dev_ops->freq_monitor_get(dpll, dpll_priv(dpll),
> > > +                        &state, extack);
> > > +        if (ret)
> > > +            return ret;
> > > +        if (state == DPLL_FEATURE_STATE_DISABLE)
> > > +            return 0;
> >
> > I think we have to signal back to user that frequency monitoring is
> > disabled via extack.
>
> Hi Vadim,
>
> This would break pin-get operation... Do or dump pin-get operation would
> fail with this extack message.
>
> Here we can check if the freq-monitoring is enabled and conditionally
> call actual_freq_get() or measured_freq_get()
>
> -or-
>
> Call this callback unconditionally and check for return code and if a
> driver returns e.g. -ENODATA then skip nla_put_64bit() but return
> success.
>
> WDYT?

Vadim?