Re: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML

Jiri Pirko
2023-03-17T10:07:15Z

Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 01:53:49AM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote:
>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:20 PM
>>
>>Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 02:45:10PM CET, jiri@resnulli.us wrote:
>>>Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 02:15:59PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>>>+ flags: [ admin-perm ]
>>>>>>+
>>>>>>+ do:
>>>>>>+ pre: dpll-pre-doit
>>>>>>+ post: dpll-post-doit
>>>>>>+ request:
>>>>>>+ attributes:
>>>>>>+ - id
>>>>>>+ - bus-name
>>>>>>+ - dev-name
>>>>>>+ - mode
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm, shouldn't source-pin-index be here as well?
>>>>
>>>>No, there is no set for this.
>>>>For manual mode user selects the pin by setting enabled state on the one
>>>>he needs to recover signal from.
>>>>
>>>>source-pin-index is read only, returns active source.
>>>
>>>Okay, got it. Then why do we have this assymetric approach? Just have
>>>the enabled state to serve the user to see which one is selected, no?
>>>This would help to avoid confusion (like mine) and allow not to create
>>>inconsistencies (like no pin enabled yet driver to return some source
>>>pin index)
>>
>>Actually, for mlx5 implementation, would be non-trivial to implement
>>this, as each of the pin/port is instantiated and controlled by separate
>>pci backend.
>>
>>Could you please remove, it is not needed and has potential and real
>>issues.
>>
>>[...]
>
>Sorry I cannot, for priority based automatic selection mode multiple sources
>are enabled at any time - selection is done automatically by the chip.
>Thus for that case, this attribute is only way of getting an active source.
>Although, maybe we could allow driver to not implement it, would this help
>for your case? As it seems only required for automatic mode selection.

Please see the other reply for this patch where I describe what I
think is wrong about this approach and suggesting a solution.

>
>Thank you,
>Arkadiusz