[RFC PATCH v3 1/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

[Vadim Fedorenko]

On 12.10.2022 17:51, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 03:17:59AM CEST, vfedorenko at novek.ru wrote:
>> From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed at fb.com>
>>
>> DPLL framework is used to represent and configure DPLL devices
>> in systems. Each device that has DPLL and can configure sources
>> and outputs can use this framework.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed at fb.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba at kernel.org>
>> Co-developed-by: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com>
>> ---
> 
> [..]
> 
>> +enum dpll_genl_status {
>> +	DPLL_STATUS_NONE,
>> +	DPLL_STATUS_CALIBRATING,
>> +	DPLL_STATUS_LOCKED,
>> +
>> +	__DPLL_STATUS_MAX,
>> +};
>> +#define DPLL_STATUS_MAX (__DPLL_STATUS_MAX - 1)
>> +
> 
> [..]
> 
>> +
>> +/* DPLL lock status provides information of source used to lock the device */
>> +enum dpll_genl_lock_status {
>> +	DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_UNLOCKED,
>> +	DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_EXT_1PPS,
>> +	DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_EXT_10MHZ,
>> +	DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_SYNCE,
>> +	DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_INT_OSCILLATOR,
>> +	DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_GNSS,
>> +
>> +	__DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_MAX,
>> +};
>> +#define DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_MAX (__DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_MAX - 1)
> 
> In addition to what I wrote in the previous reply where I suggested to
> have lock status independent on type or source, I think we should merge
> "status" and "lock status" to one attr/enum. Or any reason to have these
> separate?
> 
Yep, agree. No reason to have it separate anymore.