On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:16:13AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

+qca8k_setup_led_ctrl(struct qca8k_priv *priv)
+{
+	struct fwnode_handle *ports, *port;
+	int port_num;
+	int ret;
+
+	ports = device_get_named_child_node(priv->dev, "ports");
+	if (!ports) {
+		dev_info(priv->dev, "No ports node specified in device tree!\n");
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	fwnode_for_each_child_node(ports, port) {
+		struct fwnode_handle *phy_node, *reg_port_node = port;
+
+		phy_node = fwnode_find_reference(port, "phy-handle", 0);
+		if (!IS_ERR(phy_node))
+			reg_port_node = phy_node;

I don't understand this bit. Why are you looking at the phy-handle?

quoted

+
+		if (fwnode_property_read_u32(reg_port_node, "reg", &port_num))
+			continue;

I would of expect port, not reg_port_node. I'm missing something
here....

It's really not to implement ugly things like "reg - 1"

On qca8k the port index goes from 0 to 6.
0 is cpu port 1
1 is port0 at mdio reg 0
2 is port1 at mdio reg 1
...
6 is cpu port 2

Each port have a phy-handle that refer to a phy node with the correct
reg and that reflect the correct port index.

Tell me if this looks wrong, for qca8k we have qca8k_port_to_phy() and
at times we introduced the mdio thing to describe the port - 1 directly
in DT. If needed I can drop the additional fwnode and use this function
but I would love to use what is defined in DT thatn a simple - 1.

-- 
	Ansuel