>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 2:10 PM > >Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:07:30PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 1:16 PM >>>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:15:11AM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@xxxxxxxxx >wrote: >>>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:18 PM >>>>> >>>>>Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 02:38:10PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@xxxxxxxxx >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>v8 -> v9: >>>>> >>>>>Could you please address all the unresolved issues from v8 and send v10? >>>>>I'm not reviewing this one. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks! >>>> >>>>Sure, will do, but first missing to-do/discuss list: >>>>1) remove mode_set as not used by any driver >> >>I have implemented in ice (also added back the DPLL_MODE_FREERUN). > >Uh :/ Why exactly is it needed in this initial submission? > Without mode-set there is no need for device-set at all, right? So it is better to implement at least one set command, so we don't need remove device-set command entirely. > >> >>>>2) remove "no-added-value" static functions descriptions in >>>> dpll_core/dpll_netlink >> >>Removed. >> >>>>3) merge patches [ 03/10, 04/10, 05/10 ] into patches that are compiling >>>> after each patch apply >> >>Hope Vadim will decide on this, the thing is merging in two patches >>doesn't make much sense as there won't be any linking until both patches >>are there, so most sense it would be if 3 are merged into one, but >>then we will be back to one big blob patch issue. >> >>>>4) remove function return values descriptions/lists >> >>Fixed. >> >>>>5) Fix patch [05/10]: >>>> - status Supported >>>> - additional maintainers >>>> - remove callback: >>>> int (*source_pin_idx_get)(...) from `struct dpll_device_ops` >>>>6) Fix patch [08/10]: rethink ice mutex locking scheme >> >>Fixed. >> >>>>7) Fix patch [09/10]: multiple comments on >>>>https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZIQu+%2Fo4J0ZBspVg@nanopsycho/#t >>>>8) add PPS DPLL phase offset to the netlink get-device API >>>> >> >>Added few things on this matter >>- 1 dpll level attribute: >> - phase-shift - measuring the phase difference between dpll input >> and it's output >>- 1 dpll-pin tuple level attribute: >> - pin-phase-adjust - set/get phase adjust of a pin on a dpll >>- 2 pin level attributes: >> - pin-phase-adjust-min - provide user with min value that can be set >> - pin-phase-adjust-max - provide user with max value that can be set >>- a constant: >> - DPLL_PHASE_SHIFT_DIVIDER similar to DPLL_TEMP_DIVIDER for producing >> fraction value of measured DPLL_A_PHASE_SHIFT > >Again, why do we need this in this initial submission? Why it can't be a >follow-up patchset to extend this? This way we never converge :/ >Please focus on what we have now and bring it in. Let the extensions to >be addressed later on, please. > Well AFAIK, RHEL is doing some monitoring software, so the end-users need this. > > >>- implemented in dpll netlink and in ice >> >>> >>>You are missing removal of pin->prop.package_label = dev_name(dev); in >>>ice. >>> >> >>I didn't touch it, as we still need to discuss it, Jakub didn't respond >>on v8 thread. >>I don't see why we shall not name it the way. This is most meaningful >>label for those pins for the user right now. > >This is not meaningful, at all. dev_name() changes upon which pci slot >you plug the card into. package_label should be an actual label on a >silicon package. Why you think this two are related in aby way, makes me >really wonder. Could you elaborate the meaningfulness of this? > Without this, from end-user perspective, it would be very confusing. As in ice without any label there would 4 pins which differs only with id. What names would you suggest? Thank you! Arkadiusz > >> >>Thank you! >>Arkadiusz >> >>> >>>>Thank you! >>>>Arkadiusz
