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

[Jiri Pirko]

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.

>