[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a821d62e2ed2c6ec7b305f7d34abf0ba@walle.cc>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 15:05:01 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
daniel.machon@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, lars.povlsen@...rochip.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, richardcochran@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: lan966x: Add ptp trap rules
Am 2022-12-09 13:56, schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:58:57PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>> > Does it also work out of the box with the following patch if
>> > the interface is part of a bridge or do you still have to do
>> > the tc magic from above?
>>
>> You will still need to enable the TCAM using the tc command to have it
>> working when the interface is part of the bridge.
>
> FWIW, with ocelot (same VCAP mechanism), PTP traps work out of the box,
> no need to use tc. Same goes for ocelot-8021q, which also uses the
> VCAP.
> I wouldn't consider forcing the user to add any tc command in order for
> packet timestamping to work properly.
+1
Esp. because there is no warning. I.e. I tried this patch while
the interface was added on a bridge and there was no error
whatsoever. Also, you'd force the user to have that Kconfig option
set.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists