Re: [RFC PATCH v8 01/10] dpll: documentation on DPLL subsystem interface

[Jiri Pirko]

Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:43:29AM CEST, kuba@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Fri,  9 Jun 2023 14:18:44 +0200 Arkadiusz Kubalewski wrote:
>> From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Add documentation explaining common netlink interface to configure DPLL
>> devices and monitoring events. Common way to implement DPLL device in
>> a driver is also covered.
>
>> +``'pin': [{
>> + {'clock-id': 282574471561216,
>> +  'module-name': 'ice',
>> +  'pin-dpll-caps': 4,
>> +  'pin-id': 13,
>> +  'pin-parent': [{'pin-id': 2, 'pin-state': 'connected'},
>> +                 {'pin-id': 3, 'pin-state': 'disconnected'},
>> +                 {'id': 0, 'pin-direction': 'input'},
>> +                 {'id': 1, 'pin-direction': 'input'}],
>> +  'pin-type': 'synce-eth-port'}
>> +}]``
>
>It seems like pin-parent is overloaded, can we split it into two
>different nests?

Yeah, we had it as two and converged to this one. The thing is, the rest
of the attrs are the same for both parent pin and parent device. I link
it this way a bit better. No strong feeling.


>
>> +SET commands format
>> +===================
>> +
>> +``DPLL_CMD_DEVICE_SET`` - to target a dpll device, the user provides
>> +``DPLL_A_ID``, which is unique identifier of dpll device in the system,
>> +as well as parameter being configured (``DPLL_A_MODE``).
>> +
>> +``DPLL_CMD_PIN_SET`` - to target a pin user has to provide a
>> +``DPLL_A_PIN_ID``, which is unique identifier of a pin in the system.
>> +Also configured pin parameters must be added.
>> +If ``DPLL_A_PIN_DIRECTION`` or ``DPLL_A_PIN_FREQUENCY`` are configured,
>> +this affects all the dpll device they are connected, that is why those
>> +attributes shall not be enclosed in ``DPLL_A_PIN_PARENT``.
>> +Other attributes:
>> +``DPLL_A_PIN_PRIO`` or ``DPLL_A_PIN_STATE`` must be enclosed in
>> +``DPLL_A_PIN_PARENT`` as their configuration relates to only one
>> +parent dpll or parent pin.
>
>Also sounds like setting pin attrs and pin-parent attrs should be
>different commands.

Could be, but what't the benefit? Also, you are not configuring
pin-parent. You are configuring pin:pin-parent tuple. Basically the pin
configuration as a child. So this is mainly config of the pin itsest
Therefore does not really make sense to me to split to two comments.