[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <09b90c94-4b55-4b9f-a23b-e2bd920545bf@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:07:20 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, andrew@...n.ch
Cc: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, hkallweit1@...il.com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
richardcochran@...il.com, vladimir.oltean@....com,
vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk,
christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr, rosenp@...il.com,
steen.hegelund@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] phy: mscc: Fix PTP for VSC8574 and VSC8572
On 10/21/25 1:53 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:48:19 +0200 Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>> For VSC8574 and VSC8572, the PTP initialization is incomplete. It is
>> missing the first part but it makes the second part. Meaning that the
>> ptp_clock_register() is never called.
>>
>> There is no crash without the first part when enabling PTP but this is
>> unexpected because some PHys have PTP functionality exposed by the
>> driver and some don't even though they share the same PTP clock PTP.
>
> I'm tempted to queue this to net-next, sounds like a "never worked
> in an obvious way" case. I'd appreciate a second opinion.. Andrew?
FTR, I agree with the above, as (out of sheer ignorance) I think/fear
the first patch can potentially cause regressions.
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists