RE: [RFC PATCH v9 00/10] Create common DPLL configuration API

Kubalewski, Arkadiusz
2023-07-11T10:34:24Z

>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 2:10 PM
>
>Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:07:30PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 1:16 PM
>>>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:15:11AM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com
>wrote:
>>>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:18 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 02:38:10PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>v8 -> v9:
>>>>>
>>>>>Could you please address all the unresolved issues from v8 and send v10?
>>>>>I'm not reviewing this one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>Sure, will do, but first missing to-do/discuss list:
>>>>1) remove mode_set as not used by any driver
>>
>>I have implemented in ice (also added back the DPLL_MODE_FREERUN).
>
>Uh :/ Why exactly is it needed in this initial submission?
>

Without mode-set there is no need for device-set at all, right?
So it is better to implement at least one set command, so we don't
need remove device-set command entirely.

>
>>
>>>>2) remove "no-added-value" static functions descriptions in
>>>> dpll_core/dpll_netlink
>>
>>Removed.
>>
>>>>3) merge patches [ 03/10, 04/10, 05/10 ] into patches that are compiling
>>>> after each patch apply
>>
>>Hope Vadim will decide on this, the thing is merging in two patches
>>doesn't make much sense as there won't be any linking until both patches
>>are there, so most sense it would be if 3 are merged into one, but
>>then we will be back to one big blob patch issue.
>>
>>>>4) remove function return values descriptions/lists
>>
>>Fixed.
>>
>>>>5) Fix patch [05/10]:
>>>> - status Supported
>>>> - additional maintainers
>>>> - remove callback:
>>>> int (*source_pin_idx_get)(...) from `struct dpll_device_ops`
>>>>6) Fix patch [08/10]: rethink ice mutex locking scheme
>>
>>Fixed.
>>
>>>>7) Fix patch [09/10]: multiple comments on
>>>>https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZIQu+%2Fo4J0ZBspVg@nanopsycho/#t
>>>>8) add PPS DPLL phase offset to the netlink get-device API
>>>>
>>
>>Added few things on this matter
>>- 1 dpll level attribute:
>> - phase-shift - measuring the phase difference between dpll input
>> and it's output
>>- 1 dpll-pin tuple level attribute:
>> - pin-phase-adjust - set/get phase adjust of a pin on a dpll
>>- 2 pin level attributes:
>> - pin-phase-adjust-min - provide user with min value that can be set
>> - pin-phase-adjust-max - provide user with max value that can be set
>>- a constant:
>> - DPLL_PHASE_SHIFT_DIVIDER similar to DPLL_TEMP_DIVIDER for producing
>> fraction value of measured DPLL_A_PHASE_SHIFT
>
>Again, why do we need this in this initial submission? Why it can't be a
>follow-up patchset to extend this? This way we never converge :/
>Please focus on what we have now and bring it in. Let the extensions to
>be addressed later on, please.
>

Well AFAIK, RHEL is doing some monitoring software, so the end-users need this.

>
>
>>- implemented in dpll netlink and in ice
>>
>>>
>>>You are missing removal of pin->prop.package_label = dev_name(dev); in
>>>ice.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't touch it, as we still need to discuss it, Jakub didn't respond
>>on v8 thread.
>>I don't see why we shall not name it the way. This is most meaningful
>>label for those pins for the user right now.
>
>This is not meaningful, at all. dev_name() changes upon which pci slot
>you plug the card into. package_label should be an actual label on a
>silicon package. Why you think this two are related in aby way, makes me
>really wonder. Could you elaborate the meaningfulness of this?
>

Without this, from end-user perspective, it would be very confusing.
As in ice without any label there would 4 pins which differs only with id.
What names would you suggest?

Thank you!
Arkadiusz

>
>>
>>Thank you!
>>Arkadiusz
>>
>>>
>>>>Thank you!
>>>>Arkadiusz