Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 02:51:36PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: >On 12/15/25 2:08 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 08:35:01PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > >> > On December 12, 2025 12:25:12 PM GMT+01:00, Jiri Pirko <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:47:45PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: >> > > >> > > [..] >> > > >> > > > @@ -559,7 +563,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dpll_netdev_pin_clear); >> > > > */ >> > > > struct dpll_pin * >> > > > dpll_pin_get(u64 clock_id, u32 pin_idx, struct module *module, >> > > > - const struct dpll_pin_properties *prop) >> > > > + const struct dpll_pin_properties *prop, >> > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) >> > > > { >> > > > struct dpll_pin *pos, *ret = NULL; >> > > > unsigned long i; >> > > > @@ -568,14 +573,15 @@ dpll_pin_get(u64 clock_id, u32 pin_idx, struct >> > > > module *module, >> > > > xa_for_each(&dpll_pin_xa, i, pos) { >> > > > if (pos->clock_id == clock_id && >> > > > pos->pin_idx == pin_idx && >> > > > - pos->module == module) { >> > > > + pos->module == module && >> > > > + pos->fwnode == fwnode) { >> > > >> > > Is fwnode part of the key? Doesn't look to me like that. Then you can >> > > have a simple helper to set fwnode on struct dpll_pin *, and leave >> > > dpll_pin_get() out of this, no? >> > >> > IMHO yes, because particular fwnode identifies exact dpll pin, so >> > I think it should be a part of the key. >> >> The key items serve for userspace identification purposes as well. For >> that, fwnode is non-sense. >> fwnode identifies exact pin, that is nice. But is it the only >> differentiator among other key items? I don't expect so. > >From this point of view, not. I will not touch dpll_pin_get() and rather >use new helper like dpll_pin_fwnode_set(), ok?
Yes please. Thanks! > >Thanks, >Ivan >
