linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for MACB/GEM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:12:43 +0530
From:   Harini Katakam <harinikatakamlinux@...il.com>
To:     Rafal Ozieblo <rafalo@...ence.com>
Cc:     Andrei Pistirica <andrei.pistirica@...rochip.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "nicolas.ferre@...el.com" <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
        "harini.katakam@...inx.com" <harini.katakam@...inx.com>,
        "punnaia@...inx.com" <punnaia@...inx.com>,
        "michals@...inx.com" <michals@...inx.com>,
        "anirudh@...inx.com" <anirudh@...inx.com>,
        "boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com" 
        <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        "alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com" 
        <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        "tbultel@...elsurmer.com" <tbultel@...elsurmer.com>,
        "richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for MACB/GEM

Hi Rafal,

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Rafal Ozieblo <rafalo@...ence.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrei Pistirica [mailto:andrei.pistirica@...rochip.com]
>> Sent: 19 stycznia 2017 16:56
>> Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for MACB/GEM
>>
>>
>> +static inline bool gem_has_ptp(struct macb *bp)
>> +{
>> +     return !!(bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_GEM_HAS_PTP);
>> +}
> Why don't you use hardware capabilities here? Would it be better to read it from hardware instead adding it to many configuration?

If you are referring to TSU bit in DCFG5, then we will be relying on
Cadence IP's information irrespective of the SoC capability
and whether the PTP support was adequate.
I think the capability approach gives better control and
it is not really much to add.

Regards,
Harini