[RFC PATCH v7 5/8] ice: implement dpll interface to control cgu

[Jiri Pirko]

Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:22:37AM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com wrote:
>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>>Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 7:13 PM
>>
>>Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 02:20:06AM CEST, vadfed at meta.com wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>+static const enum dpll_lock_status
>>>+ice_dpll_status[__DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_MAX] = {
>>>+	[ICE_CGU_STATE_INVALID] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_UNSPEC,
>>>+	[ICE_CGU_STATE_FREERUN] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_UNLOCKED,
>>>+	[ICE_CGU_STATE_LOCKED] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_CALIBRATING,
>>
>>This is a bit confusing to me. You are locked, yet you report
>>calibrating? Wouldn't it be better to have:
>>DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED
>>DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED_HO_ACQ
>>
>>?
>>
>
>Sure makes sense, will add this state.

Do you need "calibrating" then? I mean, the docs says:
  ``LOCK_STATUS_CALIBRATING``   dpll device calibrates to lock to the
                                source pin signal

Yet you do: [ICE_CGU_STATE_LOCKED] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_CALIBRATING
Seems like you should have:
[ICE_CGU_STATE_LOCKED] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED
[ICE_CGU_STATE_LOCKED_HO_ACQ] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED_HO_ACQ,

and remove DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_CALIBRATING as it would be unused?

Also, as a sidenote, could you use the whole names of enum value names
in documentation? Simple reason, greppability.

Thanks!


>
>>
>>>+	[ICE_CGU_STATE_LOCKED_HO_ACQ] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED,
>>>+	[ICE_CGU_STATE_HOLDOVER] = DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_HOLDOVER,
>>>+};
>>
>>[...]