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

[Kubalewski, Arkadiusz]

>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 1:47 PM
>
>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.
>

Yes, removed CALIBRATING.
Fixed the docs.

Thank you!
Arkadiusz

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