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

Jiri Pirko
2023-04-09T07:51:57Z

Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:18:12PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:22:33 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> So basically you say, you can have 2 approaches in app:
>> 1)
>> id = dpll_device_get_id("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1")
>> dpll_device_set(id, something);
>> dpll_device_set(id, something);
>> dpll_device_set(id, something);
>> 2):
>> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
>> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
>> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
>>
>> What is exactly benefit of the first one? Why to have 2 handles? Devlink
>> is a nice example of 2) approach, no problem there.
>
>IMHO for devlink the neatness of using the name came from the fact
>that the device name was meaningful.
>
>With the advent of auxbus that's no longer the case.
>
>In fact it seems more than likely that changing the name to auxbus
>will break FW update scripts. Maybe nobody has complained yet only
>because prod adoption of these APIs is generally lacking :(
>
>I agree that supporting both name and ID is pointless, user space can
>translate between the two trivially all by itself. But I'd lean towards
>deleting the name support not the ID support :(

Wait, not sure you get the format of the "name". It does not contain any
bus address, so the auxdev issue you pointed out is not applicable.
It is driver/clock_id/index.
All 3 are stable and user can rely on them. Do you see any issue in
that?