> +/**
> + * phy_get_delay_index - returns the index of the internal delay
> + * @phydev: phy_device struct
> + * @delay_values: array of delays the PHY supports
> + * @size: the size of the delay array
> + * @int_delay: the internal delay to be looked up
> + * @descending: if the delay array is in descending order
> + *
> + * Returns the index within the array of internal delay passed in.
> + * Return errno if the delay is invalid or cannot be found.
> + */
> +s32 phy_get_delay_index(struct phy_device *phydev, int *delay_values, int size,
> + int int_delay, bool descending)
> +{
> + if (int_delay < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (size <= 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (descending)
> + return phy_find_descending_delay(phydev, delay_values, size,
> + int_delay);
> +
> + return phy_find_ascending_delay(phydev, delay_values, size, int_delay);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(phy_get_delay_index);
Do we really need this ascending vs descending? This array is not
coming from device tree of anything, it is a static list in the PHY
driver. I would just define it needs to be ascending and be done.
Andrew
