On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 7:14 PM Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> We have endpoint base functions
> - of_graph_get_next_endpoint()
> - of_graph_get_endpoint_count()
> - for_each_endpoint_of_node()
>
> for_each_endpoint_of_node() loop finds endpoint.
>
> ports {
> port@0 {
> (1) endpoint {...};
> };
> port@1 {
> (2) endpoint {...};
> };
> ...
> };
>
> In above case, for_each_endpoint_of_node() loop
> finds endpoint as (1) -> (2) -> ...
Wanting to iterate endpoints across ports like that is odd given the
ports represent different things. I think you will find there aren't
too many users as I tried to get rid of most of them some time ago.
(I'm sure more have slipped in)
> If we want to get port@0 -> port@1 -> ...
> instead of endpoint, we need do like below
>
> for_each_endpoint_of_node(node, endpoint) {
> port = of_get_parent(endpoint);
> ...
> }
>
> But port might have multi endpoints.
>
> ports {
> port@0 {
> (1) endpoint@0 {...};
> (2) endpoint@1 {...};
> };
> port@1 {
> (3) endpoint {...};
> };
> ...
> };
>
> In such case, people want to have "port base" loop
> instead of "endpoints base" loop.
> This patch adds such functions/macros.
As bindings should be defining what each port number represents, I
don't think iterating thru them without regard to port numbers is the
right model. Drivers should be requesting specific port numbers.
Rob
