Andrew On 5/26/20 7:42 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
+/** + * 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.
I was thinking about the constraints of having just an ascending array helper.
If there is a PHY out there that has a descending delay array then this function is not a helper.
Then the PHY driver now has to implement a descending search or extend out this helper to do the same.
I can just keep it ascending for now but this helper may need to be updated in the future to accommodate any PHYs with descending delay arrays.
Dan
Andrew
