Hi,
On 09/08/2024 05:10, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
Hi Tomi
Thank you for your review
+/**
+ * of_graph_get_next_ports() - get next ports node.
+ * @parent: pointer to the parent device node
+ * @ports: current ports node, or NULL to get first
+ *
+ * Return: A 'ports' node pointer with refcount incremented. Refcount
+ * of the passed @prev node is decremented.
No "prev" argument in the code.
The of_graph_get_next_endpoint() function uses "previous" as the
argument name (well, the function declaration uses "previous", the
implementation uses "prev"...), and I would use the same naming here.
Also of_graph_get_next_endpoint() talks about "previous endpoint node",
whereas here it's "current ports node". I'd use the same style here, so
"previous ports node".
The same comments for the of_graph_get_next_port().
OK, thanks. Will fix in v2
+struct device_node *of_graph_get_next_ports(struct device_node *parent,
+ struct device_node *ports)
+{
+ if (!parent)
+ return NULL;
+
+ if (!ports) {
+ ports = of_get_child_by_name(parent, "ports");
+
+ /* use parent as its ports of this device if it not exist */
I think this needs to be described in the kernel doc. I understand the
need for this, but it's somewhat counter-intuitive that this returns the
parent node if there are no ports nodes, so it must be highlighted in
the documentation.
I wonder if a bit more complexity here would be good... I think here we
could:
- If there are no 'ports' nodes in the parent, but there is a 'port'
node in the parent, return the parent node
- If there are no 'ports' nor 'port' nodes in the parent, return NULL
Thanks, but unfortunately, get_next_ports() checks only "ports" and
doesn't check whether it has "port" node or not.
Yes, my point was if the check should be added. My reasoning is:
If we have this, of_graph_get_next_ports() returns the ports@0, and that
makes sense:
parent {
ports@0 {
port@0 { };
};
};
If we have this, of_graph_get_next_ports() returns the parent, and
that's a bit surprising, but I can see the need, and it just needs to be
documented:
parent {
port { };
};
But if we have this, does it make sense that of_graph_get_next_ports()
returns the parent, or should it return NULL:
parent {
/* No ports or port */
};
So correct comment here is maybe...
If "parent" doesn't have "ports", it returns "parent" itself as "ports"
I will add it on v2
+/**
+ * of_graph_get_next_port() - get next port node.
+ * @parent: pointer to the parent device node
+ * @port: current port node, or NULL to get first
+ *
+ * Return: A 'port' node pointer with refcount incremented. Refcount
+ * of the passed @prev node is decremented.
+ */
+struct device_node *of_graph_get_next_port(struct device_node *parent,
+ struct device_node *port)
+{
+ if (!parent)
+ return NULL;
+
+ if (!port) {
+ struct device_node *ports __free(device_node) =
+ of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, NULL);
+
+ return of_get_child_by_name(ports, "port");
+ }
+
+ do {
+ port = of_get_next_child(parent, port);
+ if (!port)
+ break;
+ } while (!of_node_name_eq(port, "port"));
+
+ return port;
+}
Hmm... So if I call this with of_graph_get_next_port(dev_node, NULL)
(dev_node being the device node of the device), it'll give me the first
port in the first ports node, or the first port in the dev_node if there
are no ports nodes?
Yes
And if I then continue iterating with of_graph_get_next_port(dev_node,
prev_port)... The call will return NULL if the dev_node contains "ports"
node (because the dev_node does not contain any "port" nodes)?
So if I understand right, of_graph_get_next_port() must always be called
with a parent that contains port nodes. Sometimes that's the device's
node (if there's just one port) and sometimes that's ports node. If it's
called with a parent that contains ports node, it will not work correctly.
If the above is right, then should this just return
"of_get_child_by_name(parent, "port")" if !port, instead of calling
of_graph_get_next_ports()?
Hmm ? Do you mean you want access to ports@1 memeber port after ports@0 ?
I have tested below in my test environment
parent {
(X) ports@0 {
(A) port@0 { };
(B) port@1 { };
};
(Y) ports@1 {
(C) port@0 { };
};
};
In this case, if you call get_next_port() with parent,
you can get ports@0 member port.
/* use "paramet" and use "ports@0" are same result */
// use parent
port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, NULL); // (A)
port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, port); // (B)
port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, port); // NULl
// use ports@0
ports = of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, NULL); // (X)
port = of_graph_get_next_port(ports, NULL); // (A)
port = of_graph_get_next_port(ports, port); // (B)
port = of_graph_get_next_port(ports, port); // NULl
If you want to get ports@1 member port, you need to use ports@1.
// use ports@1
ports = of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, NULL); // (X)
ports = of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, ports); // (Y)
port = of_graph_get_next_port(ports, NULL); // (C)
I have confirmed in my test environment.
But please double check it. Is this clear for you ?
Ah, I see now. I was expecting of_get_next_child() to return children of
'parent', but that's actually not the case.
So when you call:
port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, NULL); // (A)
the function will call 'ports = of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, NULL)'
(ports is (X)) and then return of_get_child_by_name(ports, "port")
(which is (A)). This is fine.
port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, port); // (B)
Here the function will call 'port = of_get_next_child(parent, port)',
where parent is the parent node, and port is (A). The problem is, (A) is
not a child of the parent. This seems to work, as of_get_next_child()
does not use the 'parent' for anything if 'port' is given, instead if
just gives the next sibling of 'port'.
port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, port); // NULl
And now when the function calls of_get_next_child(parent, port), it does
not give the next child of parent, but instead NULL because 'port' has
no more siblings.
The documentation for of_get_next_child() doesn't mention if calling
of_get_next_child(parent, child) is valid when the given child is
actually not a child of the parent. The doc says that 'prev' parameter
should be "previous child of the parent node", which is not the case
here. So using it like this does not sound right to me.
And just looking at the behavior of:
> port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, NULL); // (A)
> port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, port); // (B)
> port = of_graph_get_next_port(parent, port); // NULl
it does not feel right. Why does of_graph_get_next_port() return only
the ports of ports@0? I think it should either return nothing, as there
are no 'port' nodes in the parent, or it should return all the port
nodes from all the ports nodes.
Can we just drop the use of of_graph_get_next_ports() from
of_graph_get_next_port()? In other words, make of_graph_get_next_port()
iterate the 'port' nodes strictly only in the given parent node.
I think we have the same problem in of_graph_get_next_ports(). If we have:
parent {
port { };
};
And we do:
ports = of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, NULL)
The returned 'ports' is actually the 'parent'. If we then call:
ports = of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, ports)
we are effectively calling of_graph_get_next_ports(parent, parent). This
results in of_get_next_child(parent, parent). of_get_next_child() will
return the next sibling of parent (so, perhaps, a node for some
unrelated device). It then checks if the name of that node is 'ports'.
So, while unlikely, if we have:
bus {
/* our display device */
display {
port { };
};
/* some odd ports device */
ports {
};
};
and you use of_graph_get_next_ports() for display, you'll end up getting
the 'ports' node.
I have to say, I feel that making the 'ports' node optional in the graph
DT bindings was a mistake, but nothing we can do about that...
Can you try adding "WARN_ON(node && prev && node != prev->parent)" to
of_get_next_child()?
Or maybe I'm just getting confused here. But in any case, I think it
would be very good to describe the behavior on the kernel doc for the
different ports/port structure cases (also for
of_graph_get_next_ports()), and be clear on what the parameters can be,
i.e. what kind of device nodes can be given as parent, and how the
function iterates over the ports.
OK, will do in v2
+ * @np: pointer to the parent device node
+ *
+ * Return: count of port of this device node
+ */
+unsigned int of_graph_get_port_count(struct device_node *np)
+{
+ struct device_node *port = NULL;
+ int num = 0;
+
+ for_each_of_graph_port(np, port)
+ num++;
+
+ return num;
+}
I my analysis above is right, calling of_graph_get_port_count(dev_node)
will return 1, if the dev_node contains "ports" node which contains one
or more "port" nodes.
In my test, it will be..
parent {
ports@0 {
port@0 { };
port@1 { };
};
ports@1 {
port@0 { };
};
};
of_graph_get_port_count(parent); // 2 = number of ports@0
I think the above is a bit surprising, and in my opinion points that
there is a problem. Why does using 'parent' equate to only using
'ports@0'? Again, I would expect either to get 0 (as there are no 'port'
nodes in parent, or 3.
of_graph_get_port_count(ports0); // 2 = number of ports@0
of_graph_get_port_count(ports1); // 1 = number of ports@1
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
Tomi
