Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 11:18:12 -0700

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:22:33 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> So basically you say, you can have 2 approaches in app:
> 1)
> id = dpll_device_get_id("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1")
> dpll_device_set(id, something);
> dpll_device_set(id, something);
> dpll_device_set(id, something);
> 2):
> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
> 
> What is exactly benefit of the first one? Why to have 2 handles? Devlink
> is a nice example of 2) approach, no problem there.

IMHO for devlink the neatness of using the name came from the fact 
that the device name was meaningful. 

With the advent of auxbus that's no longer the case.

In fact it seems more than likely that changing the name to auxbus
will break FW update scripts. Maybe nobody has complained yet only
because prod adoption of these APIs is generally lacking :(

I agree that supporting both name and ID is pointless, user space can
translate between the two trivially all by itself. But I'd lean towards
deleting the name support not the ID support :(