[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKWXnULfWkkvukWEzBBTG8JP+HKVg6WWejWcOA=p24tvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:58:29 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Gilad Avidov <gavidov@...eaurora.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>, shankerd@...eaurora.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
vikrams@...eaurora.org, Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Rob Herring wrote:
[...]
>>>> Isn't this a user enabled feature if the h/w supports it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there a sysfs entry for that? We were planning on having a similar
>>> ACPI
>>> property.
>>
>>
>> It would be in ethtool I think.
>
>
> Ah, this driver does not support ethtool yet.
>
> However, based on a cursory look of ethtool, it appears that there's only an
> option to query the current timestamp, but not actually enable/disable the
> feature. The e1000e driver, for example, just forces the feature by default
> for various chips. Is there any reason why we shouldn't enable it if the
> hardware supports it?
Probably not. You simply ignore the timestamp if you don't care. So
then why do you want a DT property?
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists