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

Jiri Pirko
2023-05-04T11:14:31Z

Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:00:42PM CEST, jiri@resnulli.us wrote:
>Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:16:43AM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:56:57 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> >Yup, non-deterministic, just a cyclic ID allocated by the core starting
>>> >from 1. Finding the right device / pin needs to be done via
>>> >informational attributes not making assumptions about the ID.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>> When netdev will have pin ID in the RT netlink message (as it is done
>>> in RFCv7), it is easy to get the pin/dpll for netdev. No problem there.
>>>
>>> However, for non-SyncE usecase, how do you imagine scripts to work?
>>> I mean, the script have to obtain dpll/pin ID by deterministic
>>> module_name/clock_id/idx tuple.
>>
>>No scoped idx.
>
>That means, no index defined by a driver if I undestand you correctly,
>right?
>
>
>>
>>> There are 2 options to do that:
>>> 1) dump all dplls/pins and do lookup in userspace
>>> 2) get a dpll/pin according to given module_name/clock_id/idx tuple
>>>
>>> The first approach is not very nice.
>>> The currently pushed RFCv7 of the patchset does not support 2)
>>>
>>> Now if we add support for 2), we basically use module_name/clock_id/idx
>>> as a handle for "get cmd". My point is, why can't we use it for "set
>>> cmd" as well and avoid the ID entirely?
>>
>>Sure, we don't _have_ to have an ID, but it seems go against normal
>>data normalization rules. And I don't see any harm in it.
>>
>>But you're asking for per-device "idx" and that's a no-go for me,
>>given already cited experience.
>>
>>The user space can look up the ID based on identifying information it
>>has. IMO it's better to support multiple different intelligible elements
>
>Do you mean fixed tuple or variable tuple?
>
>CMD_GET_ID
> -> DPLL_A_MODULE_NAME
> DPLL_A_CLOCK_ID

Sorry, I hit the send button by a mistake.
I ment to add a question here:
What is the next intelligible element to identify DPLL device here?

> <- DPLL_A_ID
>
>CMD_GET_PIN_ID
> -> DPLL_A_MODULE_NAME
> DPLL_A_CLOCK_ID

What is the next intelligible element to identify a pin here?

> <- DPLL_A_PIN_ID
>
>
>
>>than single integer index into which drivers will start encoding all
>>sort of info, using locally invented schemes.
>
>There could be multiple DPLL and pin instances for a single
>module/clock_id tuple we have to distinguish somehow. If the driver
>can't pass "index" of DPLL or a pin, how we distinguish them?
>
>Plus is is possible that 2 driver instances share the same dpll
>instance, then to get the dpll pointer reference, they do:
>INSTANCE A:
>dpll_0 = dpll_device_get(clock_id, 0, THIS_MODULE);
>dpll_1 = dpll_device_get(clock_id, 1, THIS_MODULE);
>
>INSTANCE B:
>dpll_0 = dpll_device_get(clock_id, 0, THIS_MODULE);
>dpll_1 = dpll_device_get(clock_id, 1, THIS_MODULE);
>
>My point is, event if we don't expose the index to the userspace,
>we need to have it internally.
>