Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] PCI: spacemit-k1: Add multiple PHY handles support
Inochi Amaoto <[email protected]> Sun, 12 Jul 2026 13:41:25 +0800
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.spacemit,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 03:44:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 06:55:10PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > 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: > > ... > > > > > > > + 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?) > > You rewrite 0 by 0, but the fact of the rewriting is inaccuracy. > We should not rewrite the default (whatever it is) with 0 count > as semantically they are different cases. The rule of thumb, we > don't assign values in case of errors, we leave them as is and > it's user / caller responsibility to assign the default and handle > errors properly. This is simple layering violation. > > Your code should be > > if (i == 0) > return -EINVAL; > > k1->phy_count = i; > return 0; > Good, I understand it. Thanks. > > > > > 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. > > Then the counted_by will be incorrect as it may access valid memory, but > unused by the driver. > After some search I found a requirement in GCC patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/653123.html It seems like the array can have more elements than the counter. Some I guess the reallocation is not necessary and the counter is still correct. Correct me if I am wrong. > ... > > > > > > > + 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, > > Sure, there are two (one for integers and one for pointers) > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiCOTW5UftUrAnvJkr6769D29tF7Of79gUjdQHS_TkF5A@mail.gmail.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgy8p4is8ApEQCT5NS7XFb+NXeo-TKz7jRRZVksLLBSrQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > > I have not found this on the coding-style. > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html > > Feel free to update the documentation. > Good to know thanks. > > > > > > + phy_exit(k1->phy[i]); > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > Regards, Inochi