[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221209141426.2b7psesiu6txd6ue@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:14:26 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
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
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 03:05:01PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
> 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.
Yup. What I said about Ocelot is also applicable to MRP traps, which
Horatiu added. No tc necessary there, either.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists