Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] dpll: zl3073x: clean up esync get/set and use zl3073x_out_is_ndiv()

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 17:17:25 +0000

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.

For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
---
dpll: zl3073x: clean up esync get/set and use zl3073x_out_is_ndiv()

Return -EOPNOTSUPP early in esync_get callbacks when esync is not
supported instead of conditionally populating the range at the end.
This simplifies the control flow by removing the finish label/goto
in the output variant and the conditional range assignment in both
input and output variants.

Replace open-coded N-div signal format switch statements with
zl3073x_out_is_ndiv() helper in esync_get, esync_set and
frequency_set callbacks.

> diff --git a/drivers/dpll/zl3073x/dpll.c b/drivers/dpll/zl3073x/dpll.c
> index a29f606318f6..79ef62d69a32 100644
> --- a/drivers/dpll/zl3073x/dpll.c
> +++ b/drivers/dpll/zl3073x/dpll.c
> @@ -131,6 +131,12 @@ zl3073x_dpll_input_pin_esync_get(const struct dpll_pin *dpll_pin,
>  	ref_id = zl3073x_input_pin_ref_get(pin->id);
>  	ref = zl3073x_ref_state_get(zldev, ref_id);
>
> +	if (!pin->esync_control || zl3073x_ref_freq_get(ref) == 1)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	esync->range = esync_freq_ranges;
> +	esync->range_num = ARRAY_SIZE(esync_freq_ranges);
> +
>  	switch (FIELD_GET(ZL_REF_SYNC_CTRL_MODE, ref->sync_ctrl)) {
>  	case ZL_REF_SYNC_CTRL_MODE_50_50_ESYNC_25_75:
>  		esync->freq = ref->esync_n_div == ZL_REF_ESYNC_DIV_1HZ ? 1 : 0;
> @@ -142,17 +148,6 @@ zl3073x_dpll_input_pin_esync_get(const struct dpll_pin *dpll_pin,
>  		break;
>  	}
>
> -	/* If the pin supports esync control expose its range but only
> -	 * if the current reference frequency is > 1 Hz.
> -	 */
> -	if (pin->esync_control && zl3073x_ref_freq_get(ref) > 1) {
> -		esync->range = esync_freq_ranges;
> -		esync->range_num = ARRAY_SIZE(esync_freq_ranges);
> -	} else {
> -		esync->range = NULL;
> -		esync->range_num = 0;
> -	}
> -
>  	return 0;
>  }

The refactoring changes the behavior when the reference frequency is 0 Hz.

The old code checked 'zl3073x_ref_freq_get(ref) > 1' which excluded both
freq==0 and freq==1 from having the esync range exposed. The new code checks
'zl3073x_ref_freq_get(ref) == 1' which only excludes freq==1.

When freq==0 (which can happen when freq_base, freq_mult, or freq_ratio_m
is 0), the old code would return 0 with esync->range=NULL and
esync->range_num=0, while the new code returns 0 with
esync->range=esync_freq_ranges and esync->range_num=1.

The removed comment documented the original intent: "if the current reference
frequency is > 1 Hz". Should the new check be 'zl3073x_ref_freq_get(ref) <= 1'
to preserve the original behavior for 0 Hz frequencies?

>
> @@ -582,8 +577,8 @@ zl3073x_dpll_output_pin_esync_get(const struct dpll_pin *dpll_pin,
>  	struct zl3073x_dpll_pin *pin = pin_priv;
>  	const struct zl3073x_synth *synth;
>  	const struct zl3073x_out *out;
> +	u32 synth_freq, out_freq;
>  	u8 clock_type, out_id;
> -	u32 synth_freq;
>
>  	out_id = zl3073x_output_pin_out_get(pin->id);
>  	out = zl3073x_out_state_get(zldev, out_id);
> @@ -592,17 +587,19 @@ zl3073x_dpll_output_pin_esync_get(const struct dpll_pin *dpll_pin,
>  	 * for N-division is also used for the esync divider so both cannot
>  	 * be used.
>  	 */
> -	switch (zl3073x_out_signal_format_get(out)) {
> -	case ZL_OUTPUT_MODE_SIGNAL_FORMAT_2_NDIV:
> -	case ZL_OUTPUT_MODE_SIGNAL_FORMAT_2_NDIV_INV:
> +	if (zl3073x_out_is_ndiv(out))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -	default:
> -		break;
> -	}
>
>  	/* Get attached synth frequency */
>  	synth = zl3073x_synth_state_get(zldev, zl3073x_out_synth_get(out));
>  	synth_freq = zl3073x_synth_freq_get(synth);
> +	out_freq = synth_freq / out->div;
> +
> +	if (!pin->esync_control || out_freq == 1)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	esync->range = esync_freq_ranges;
> +	esync->range_num = ARRAY_SIZE(esync_freq_ranges);
>
>  	clock_type = FIELD_GET(ZL_OUTPUT_MODE_CLOCK_TYPE, out->mode);
>  	if (clock_type != ZL_OUTPUT_MODE_CLOCK_TYPE_ESYNC) {
> @@ -610,11 +607,11 @@ zl3073x_dpll_output_pin_esync_get(const struct dpll_pin *dpll_pin,
>  		esync->freq = 0;
>  		esync->pulse = 0;
>
> -		goto finish;
> +		return 0;
>  	}
>
>  	/* Compute esync frequency */
> -	esync->freq = synth_freq / out->div / out->esync_n_period;
> +	esync->freq = out_freq / out->esync_n_period;
>
>  	/* By comparing the esync_pulse_width to the half of the pulse width
>  	 * the esync pulse percentage can be determined.
> @@ -623,18 +620,6 @@ zl3073x_dpll_output_pin_esync_get(const struct dpll_pin *dpll_pin,
>  	 */
>  	esync->pulse = (50 * out->esync_n_width) / out->div;
>
> -finish:
> -	/* Set supported esync ranges if the pin supports esync control and
> -	 * if the output frequency is > 1 Hz.
> -	 */
> -	if (pin->esync_control && (synth_freq / out->div) > 1) {
> -		esync->range = esync_freq_ranges;
> -		esync->range_num = ARRAY_SIZE(esync_freq_ranges);
> -	} else {
> -		esync->range = NULL;
> -		esync->range_num = 0;
> -	}
> -
>  	return 0;
>  }

Similar to the input variant, this changes the behavior for 0 Hz output
frequencies.

The old code used '(synth_freq / out->div) > 1' to decide whether to expose
the esync range, which excluded both out_freq==0 and out_freq==1. The new
code uses 'out_freq == 1' for the early -EOPNOTSUPP return, only excluding
out_freq==1.

When out_freq==0 (which can happen when synth_freq is 0 or synth_freq <
out->div), the old code returned 0 with esync->range=NULL and
esync->range_num=0, while the new code returns 0 with
esync->range=esync_freq_ranges and esync->range_num=1.

The removed comment documented the intent: "if the output frequency is > 1
Hz". Should this also use 'out_freq <= 1' to maintain consistency with the
original behavior?

[ ... ]