[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221121231314.kabhej6ae6bl3qtj@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 01:13:14 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
woojung.huh@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com, richardcochran@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next v2 3/8] net: dsa: microchip: Initial
hardware time stamping support
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 09:11:45PM +0530, Arun Ramadoss wrote:
> +static int ksz_ptp_enable_mode(struct ksz_device *dev, bool enable)
> +{
> + u16 data = 0;
> +
> + /* Enable PTP mode */
> + if (enable)
> + data = PTP_ENABLE;
> +
> + return ksz_rmw16(dev, REG_PTP_MSG_CONF1, PTP_ENABLE, data);
> +}
> +
> +static int ksz_set_hwtstamp_config(struct ksz_device *dev, int port,
> + struct hwtstamp_config *config)
> +{
> + struct ksz_tagger_data *tagger_data = ksz_tagger_data(dev->ds);
> + struct ksz_port *prt = &dev->ports[port];
> + bool rx_on;
> +
> + /* reserved for future extensions */
> + if (config->flags)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + switch (config->tx_type) {
> + case HWTSTAMP_TX_OFF:
> + case HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_P2P:
> + prt->hwts_tx_en = config->tx_type;
> + break;
> + case HWTSTAMP_TX_ON:
> + if (!is_lan937x(dev))
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + prt->hwts_tx_en = config->tx_type;
> + break;
> + default:
> + return -ERANGE;
> + }
> +
> + switch (config->rx_filter) {
> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE:
> + rx_on = false;
> + break;
> + default:
> + rx_on = true;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (rx_on != tagger_data->hwtstamp_get_state(dev->ds)) {
> + int ret;
> +
> + tagger_data->hwtstamp_set_state(dev->ds, false);
> +
> + ret = ksz_ptp_enable_mode(dev, rx_on);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (rx_on)
> + tagger_data->hwtstamp_set_state(dev->ds, true);
> + }
What's your excuse which such a horrible code pattern? What will happen
so bad with the packet if it's flagged with a TX timestamp request in
KSZ_SKB_CB(skb) at the same time as REG_PTP_MSG_CONF1 is written to?
Also, doesn't dev->ports[port].hwts_tx_en serve as a guard against
flagging packets for TX timestamps when you shouldn't?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/net/dsa/tag_ksz.c b/net/dsa/tag_ksz.c
> index 37db5156f9a3..6a909a300c13 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/tag_ksz.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/tag_ksz.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> * Copyright (c) 2017 Microchip Technology
> */
>
> +#include <linux/dsa/ksz_common.h>
> #include <linux/etherdevice.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <net/dsa.h>
> @@ -18,6 +19,62 @@
> #define KSZ_EGRESS_TAG_LEN 1
> #define KSZ_INGRESS_TAG_LEN 1
>
> +#define KSZ_HWTS_EN 0
> +
> +struct ksz_tagger_private {
> + struct ksz_tagger_data data; /* Must be first */
> + unsigned long state;
> +};
> +
> +static struct ksz_tagger_private *
> +ksz_tagger_private(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> +{
> + return ds->tagger_data;
> +}
> +
> +static bool ksz_hwtstamp_get_state(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> +{
> + struct ksz_tagger_private *priv = ksz_tagger_private(ds);
> +
> + return test_bit(KSZ_HWTS_EN, &priv->state);
> +}
> +
> +static void ksz_hwtstamp_set_state(struct dsa_switch *ds, bool on)
> +{
> + struct ksz_tagger_private *priv = ksz_tagger_private(ds);
> +
> + if (on)
> + set_bit(KSZ_HWTS_EN, &priv->state);
> + else
> + clear_bit(KSZ_HWTS_EN, &priv->state);
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists