Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] phy: core: Add phy bulk data helper functions

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:37:07PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> +static inline int phy_bulk_get_all(struct device *dev,
> +				   struct phy_bulk_data **phys)
> +{
> +	if (phys)
> +		*phys = NULL;
> +
> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int of_phy_bulk_get_all(struct device_node *np,
> +				      struct phy_bulk_data **phys)
> +{
> +	if (phys)
> +		*phys = NULL;
> +
> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +}

Why do the stub definitions of *_get_all() return an error?
I would expect these to have optional semantics, i.e. 0 PHYs are not an
error to the consumer.

For reference, I am comparing with clk_bulk_get_all() which returns 0.

> +
> +static inline void phy_bulk_put(struct device *dev, unsigned int num_phys,
> +				struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	if (!phys)
> +		return;
> +
> +	while (num_phys--)
> +		phys[num_phys].phy = NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void of_phy_bulk_put(unsigned int num_phys,
> +				   struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	if (!phys)
> +		return;
> +
> +	while (num_phys--)
> +		phys[num_phys].phy = NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void phy_bulk_put_all(struct device *dev, unsigned int num_phys,
> +				    struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	phy_bulk_put(dev, num_phys, phys);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void of_phy_bulk_put_all(unsigned int num_phys,
> +				       struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	of_phy_bulk_put(num_phys, phys);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_bulk_check_disabled(unsigned int num_phys,
> +					  struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	if (!phys)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	for (unsigned int i = 0; i < num_phys; i++)
> +		if (phys[i].phy)
> +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;

For consistency with the individual API, I believe this should be
-ENOSYS (not that I know why we would be using this error code).

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

Can you update Documentation/driver-api/phy/phy.rst with some terse
references to the bulk API and its intended use? Not much, just say
what it's for (like multi-lane protocols, and why some operations are
missing: phy_validate(), phy_set_mode_ext() etc). I guess they are
missing because currently they have no user, which is OK, but the rest
of the world should be on the same page w.r.t. the future of this API.

Thanks!