Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 09:53:07 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >Yup. Even renaming EXT to something that's less.. relative :(  
> 
> Suggestion?

Well, is an SMT socket on the board an EXT pin?
Which is why I prefer PANEL.

> >> Well sure, in case there is no "label" attr for the rest of the types.
> >> Which I believe it is, for the ice implementation in this patchset.
> >> Otherwise, there is no way to distinguish between the pins.
> >> To have multiple attrs for label for multiple pin types does not make
> >> any sense to me, that was my point.  
> >
> >Come on, am I really this bad at explaining this?  
> 
> Or perhaps I'm just slow.
> 
> >If we make a generic "label" attribute driver authors will pack
> >everything they want to expose to the user into it, and then some.  
> 
> What's difference in generic label string attr and type specific label
> string attr. What is stopping driver developers to pack crap in either
> of these 2. Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you draw examples?
> 
> >So we need attributes which will feel *obviously* *wrong* to abuse.  
> 
> Sure, I get what you say and agree. I'm just trying to find out the
> actual attributes :)

PANEL label must match the name on the panel. User can take the card
into their hand, look at the front, and there should be a label/sticker/
/engraving which matches exactly what the kernel reports.

If the label is printed on the board it's a BOARD_LABEL, if it's the
name of a trace in board docs it's a BOARD_TRACE, if it's a pin of 
the ASIC it's a PACKAGE_PIN.

If it's none of those, or user does not have access to the detailed
board / pinout - don't use the label.