Re: [PATCH net-next v12 08/14] dpll: zl3073x: Read DPLL types and pin properties from system firmware

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

On 02. 07. 25 12:41 odp., Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 09:10:43PM +0200, ivecera@redhat.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>> +/**
>> + * zl3073x_prop_dpll_type_get - get DPLL channel type
>> + * @zldev: pointer to zl3073x device
>> + * @index: DPLL channel index
>> + *
>> + * Return: DPLL type for given DPLL channel
>> + */
>> +enum dpll_type
>> +zl3073x_prop_dpll_type_get(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index)
>> +{
>> +	const char *types[ZL3073X_MAX_CHANNELS];
>> +	int count;
>> +
>> +	/* Read dpll types property from firmware */
>> +	count = device_property_read_string_array(zldev->dev, "dpll-types",
>> +						  types, ARRAY_SIZE(types));
>> +
>> +	/* Return default if property or entry for given channel is missing */
>> +	if (index >= count)
>> +		return DPLL_TYPE_PPS;
> 
> Not sure how this embedded stuff works, but isn't better to just bail
> out in case this is not present/unknown_value? Why assuming PPS is
> correct?

Per discussion with Microchip, the PPS should be reported as default.
The platform can define either via DT or APCI or software_node the
values for the DPLLs. Anyway this attribute is informational.

>> +
>> +	if (!strcmp(types[index], "pps"))
>> +		return DPLL_TYPE_PPS;
>> +	else if (!strcmp(types[index], "eec"))
>> +		return DPLL_TYPE_EEC;
>> +
>> +	dev_info(zldev->dev, "Unknown DPLL type '%s', using default\n",
>> +		 types[index]);
>> +
>> +	return DPLL_TYPE_PPS; /* Default */
>> +}
> 
> [...]
>