[PATCH net-next v4 0/9] Create common DPLL configuration API

[Vadim Fedorenko]

On 15/08/2023 12:52, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 01:36:11PM CEST, vadim.fedorenko at linux.dev wrote:
>> On 15/08/2023 03:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:03:31 +0100 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>>>    create mode 100644 Documentation/driver-api/dpll.rst
>>>>    create mode 100644 Documentation/netlink/specs/dpll.yaml
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/Kconfig
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/Makefile
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/dpll_core.h
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.h
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/dpll_nl.c
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/dpll/dpll_nl.h
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_dpll.c
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_dpll.h
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/dpll.c
>>>>    create mode 100644 include/linux/dpll.h
>>>>    create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/dpll.h
>>>
>>> Feels like we're lacking tests here. Is there a common subset of
>>> stuff we can expect reasonable devices to support?
>>> Anything you used in development that can be turned into tests?
>>
>> Well, we were playing with the tool ynl/cli.py and it's stated in
>> the cover letter. But needs proper hardware to run. I'm not sure
>> we can easily create emulation device to run tests.
> 
> Well, something like "dpllsim", similar to netdevsim would be certainly
> possible, then you can use it to write selftests for the uapi testing.
> But why don't we do that as a follow-up patchset?

Yeah, I agree, we can implement simulator, but as a follow-up work. 
Otherwise it might take a year to merge this set :)