Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 02/13] dpll: Allow registering pin with firmware node

[Jiri Pirko]

Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 02:51:36PM +0100, ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On 12/15/25 2:08 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 08:35:01PM +0100, ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On December 12, 2025 12:25:12 PM GMT+01:00, Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:47:45PM +0100, ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > [..]
>> > > 
>> > > > @@ -559,7 +563,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dpll_netdev_pin_clear);
>> > > >   */
>> > > > struct dpll_pin *
>> > > > dpll_pin_get(u64 clock_id, u32 pin_idx, struct module *module,
>> > > > -	     const struct dpll_pin_properties *prop)
>> > > > +	     const struct dpll_pin_properties *prop,
>> > > > +	     struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
>> > > > {
>> > > > 	struct dpll_pin *pos, *ret = NULL;
>> > > > 	unsigned long i;
>> > > > @@ -568,14 +573,15 @@ dpll_pin_get(u64 clock_id, u32 pin_idx, struct module *module,
>> > > > 	xa_for_each(&dpll_pin_xa, i, pos) {
>> > > > 		if (pos->clock_id == clock_id &&
>> > > > 		    pos->pin_idx == pin_idx &&
>> > > > -		    pos->module == module) {
>> > > > +		    pos->module == module &&
>> > > > +		    pos->fwnode == fwnode) {
>> > > 
>> > > Is fwnode part of the key? Doesn't look to me like that. Then you can
>> > > have a simple helper to set fwnode on struct dpll_pin *, and leave
>> > > dpll_pin_get() out of this, no?
>> > 
>> > IMHO yes, because particular fwnode identifies exact dpll pin, so
>> > I think it should be a part of the key.
>> 
>> The key items serve for userspace identification purposes as well. For
>> that, fwnode is non-sense.
>> fwnode identifies exact pin, that is nice. But is it the only
>> differentiator among other key items? I don't expect so.
>
>>From this point of view, not. I will not touch dpll_pin_get() and rather
>use new helper like dpll_pin_fwnode_set(), ok?

Yes please. Thanks!


>
>Thanks,
>Ivan
>