[PATCH v4 2/6] PCI: spacemit-k1: Add multiple PHY handles support

[Inochi Amaoto]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 11:07:40AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 09:57:05AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 10:16:28AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 12:00:22PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >  struct k1_pcie {
> > > >  	struct dw_pcie pci;
> > > >  	const struct k1_pcie_device_data *data;
> > > > -	struct phy *phy;
> > > > +	struct phy **phy;
> > > 
> > > Should it be annotated by __counted_by_ptr() ?
> > 
> > Yes, I think it can, this is something I have missed.
> > 
> > > > +	unsigned int phy_count;
> > > 
> > > Ah, you allocate much more memory than possible PHYs... Can you redesign and
> > > use the above annotation?
> > 
> > IIRC use the annotation does not reduce this memory usage...
> 
> It's about how you allocate it, the code uses max_phy_count instead of
> phy_count.
> 
> > > >  	void __iomem *link;
> > > >  	struct regmap *pmu;	/* Errors ignored; MMIO-backed regmap */
> > > >  	u32 pmu_off;
> > > 
> > > >  }
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +	k1->phy_count = i;
> > > > +	if (k1->phy_count == 0)
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > 
> > > This doesn't seem correct to me, I would expect phy_count to be assigned only
> > > when it's valid. (Yes, perhaps 0 is the same as it was, but semantically it's
> > > different 0 in this case.)
> > 
> > I guess you think 0 is a valid number? I can not understand what you thing
> > Assign this to 0 if there is no phy is fine to me, which shows there is 0
> > vaild phy found.
> 
> Isn't it already 0? Semantically code is wrong in a flow (not in the result).
> 

In fact it is already 0 here. But I am not understand why you thing is wrong.
Could you explain it in detail? (Maybe you think it is not good to return 
-EINVAL?)

> > > See also above. Do we have some PHY API that just counts provided PHYs?
> > > If not, that what you should probably add first, before this patch.
> > 
> > I have not found any api for this. But the actual problem is, how the api
> > is designed. I have checked both the array bulk api for reset and clock,
> > it seems like it is much more than this patch...
> 
> Yeah, I looked at the phy-core and I think it will be hard to implement.
> So, the idea is then is to reallocate the pointer each time you get a new PHY.
> In this case the phy_count will reflect the actual memory consumption by phy.
> 

Emmm, I think it is kind of buggy and not necessary. In most case
this array is not long actually, so allocate some pointer should be
fine and be an acceptable cost.

> ...
> 
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < k1->phy_count; i++)
> > > 
> > > 	for (unsigned int i = 0; i < k1->phy_count; i++)
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree with the unsigned int, but I guess this definition is not
> > allowed in linux.
> 
> It's allowed and it's encouraged even by Linus. As long as iterator is local,
> use this syntax sugar and reduce its scope. It hardens the code.
> 

Could you give me a reference url to check, I have not found this
on the coding-style.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html

> > > > +		phy_exit(k1->phy[i]);
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 

Regards,
Inochi