Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:34:11PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>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. The enum cmd valu could stay as a placeholder, the rest can go. > >> >>> >>>>>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. They need it for the initial submission? Why? Why can't they wait 1 week for follow-up patchset? > >> >> >>>- 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. There you go, it does not have any label, yet you are trying hard to make up some. Does not make sense. >What names would you suggest? That is the point I made previously. For synce usecase, the label does not make sense. There should be no label. You reference the pin by ID from netdev, that is enough. I think better to add the check to pin-register so future synce pin users don't have similar weird ideas. Could you please add this check? Thanks! > >Thank you! >Arkadiusz > >> >>> >>>Thank you! >>>Arkadiusz >>> >>>> >>>>>Thank you! >>>>>Arkadiusz
