[PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 8 May 2023 14:17:30 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Hmm, that would kind of embed the pin type into attr which feels wrong.  

An attribute which changes meaning based on a value of another attribute
feels even more wrong.

> >Looking at the above from a different angle, the
> >DPLL_A_PIN_FRONT_PANEL_LABEL attribute will be available only for
> >DPLL_PIN_TYPE_EXT type pins, which looks legit to me - possibly
> >renaming DPLL_A_PIN_FRONT_PANEL_LABEL as DPLL_A_PIN_EXT_LABEL.  

Yup. Even renaming EXT to something that's less.. relative :(

> Well sure, in case there is no "label" attr for the rest of the types.
> Which I believe it is, for the ice implementation in this patchset.
> Otherwise, there is no way to distinguish between the pins.
> To have multiple attrs for label for multiple pin types does not make
> any sense to me, that was my point.

Come on, am I really this bad at explaining this?

If we make a generic "label" attribute driver authors will pack
everything they want to expose to the user into it, and then some.

So we need attributes which will feel *obviously* *wrong* to abuse.