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

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

On 12/15/25 2:08 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 08:35:01PM +0100, ivecera@redhat.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On December 12, 2025 12:25:12 PM GMT+01:00, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>> Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:47:45PM +0100, ivecera@redhat.com 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?

Thanks,
Ivan