Re: [RFC PATCH v8 04/10] dpll: netlink: Add DPLL framework base functions
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Date: 2023-06-23 07:48:11
Also in:
intel-wired-lan, linux-clk, linux-doc, linux-rdma, lkml
Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 02:56:24AM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote:
quoted
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 3:08 PM Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 01:53:24PM CEST, jiri@resnulli.us wrote:quoted
Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 01:18:59PM CEST, poros@redhat.com wrote:quoted
Arkadiusz Kubalewski píše v Pá 09. 06. 2023 v 14:18 +0200:quoted
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>[...] Could you perhaps cut out the text you don't comment? Saves some time finding your reply.quoted
quoted
+static int +dpll_set_from_nlattr(struct dpll_device *dpll, struct genl_info *info) +{ + const struct dpll_device_ops *ops = dpll_device_ops(dpll); + struct nlattr *tb[DPLL_A_MAX + 1]; + int ret = 0; + + nla_parse(tb, DPLL_A_MAX, genlmsg_data(info->genlhdr), + genlmsg_len(info->genlhdr), NULL, info->extack); + if (tb[DPLL_A_MODE]) {Hi, Here should be something like: if (!ops->mode_set) return -EOPNOTSUPP;Why? All drivers implement that. I believe that it's actullaly better that way. For a called setting up the same mode it is the dpll in, there should be 0 return by the driver. Note that driver holds this value. I'd like to keep this code as it is.Actually, you are correct Petr, my mistake. Actually, no driver implements this. Arkadiusz, could you please remove this op and possibly any other unused op? It will be added when needed. Thanks!Sorry, didn't have time for such change, added only check as suggested by Petr. If you think this is a big issue, we could change it for next version.
It's odd to carry on ops which are unused. I would prefer that to be removed now and only introduced when they are actually needed.
Thank you! Arkadiuszquoted
quoted
[...]