[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7715832.IkuprK9oYb@n95hx1g2>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:38:44 +0200
From: Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
CC: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@...enta.de>,
Paul Barker <pbarker@...sulko.com>,
Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@...rochip.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
Tristram Ha <Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 8/9] net: dsa: microchip: ksz9477: add Pulse Per Second (PPS) support
On Monday, 19 October 2020, 19:46:17 CEST, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:24:34PM +0200, Christian Eggers wrote:
> > static int ksz9477_ptp_enable(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct
> > ptp_clock_request *req, int on) {
> >
> > - return -ENOTTY;
> > + struct ksz_device *dev = container_of(ptp, struct ksz_device, ptp_caps);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + switch (req->type) {
> > + case PTP_CLK_REQ_PPS:
> > + mutex_lock(&dev->ptp_mutex);
> > + ret = ksz9477_ptp_enable_pps(dev, on);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dev->ptp_mutex);
> > + return ret;
> > + default:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> >
> > }
>
> Nope, this is not what you're looking for. Please implement
> PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT.
Are you sure? I have implemented both (see patch 9/9). I cannot see that the
PTP_ENABLE_PPS(2) ioctls are translated into PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT.
PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT is also called in pps_enable_store().
regards
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists