[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241021191227.dxfqli6uoeoxbhzj@DEN-DL-M70577>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:12:27 +0000
From: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>, Lars Povlsen
<lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
<horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, <jensemil.schulzostergaard@...rochip.com>,
<Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>, <Raju.Lakkaraju@...rochip.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
<ast@...erby.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/15] net: lan969x: add PTP handler function
Hi Maxime,
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:58:47 +0200
> Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com> wrote:
>
> > Add PTP IRQ handler for lan969x. This is required, as the PTP registers
> > are placed in two different targets on Sparx5 and lan969x. The
> > implementation is otherwise the same as on Sparx5.
> >
> > Also, expose sparx5_get_hwtimestamp() for use by lan969x.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.h
> > index 15f5d38776c4..3f66045c57ef 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.h
> > @@ -114,6 +114,8 @@ enum sparx5_vlan_port_type {
> > #define SPX5_DSM_CAL_LEN 64
> > #define SPX5_DSM_CAL_MAX_DEVS_PER_TAXI 13
> >
> > +#define SPARX5_MAX_PTP_ID 512
> > +
>
> Sorry if I somehow missed it, but if you define SPARX5_MAX_PTP_ID here,
> you probably don't need it to be also defined in sparx5_ptp.c as well ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Maxime
You are right. It should definitely be removed from sparx5_ptp.c
Will fix it in v2. Thanks!
/Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists