netdev - Re: stmmac: Reporting ethtool_ts

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:45:21 +0530
From:	Rayagond Kokatanur <rayagond@...avyalabs.com>
To:	Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
Subject: Re: stmmac: Reporting ethtool_ts_info

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au> wrote:
> G'day All,
>
> The stmmac driver checks (priv->hwts_tx_en) && (priv->hwts_rx_en) before
> reporting WHTSTAMP capabilities.
> No other driver seems to do this. hwts_*_en indicate if timestamping is
> enabled, not if the interface is capable of it.
> Instead they check there capabilities. Which would be
> (priv->dma_cap.time_stamp || priv->dma_cap.atime_stamp)

Yes true.

priv->hwts_*_en indicate if timestamping is enabled/disabled at run
time. But  priv->dma_cap.time_stamp  and priv->dma_cap.atime_stamp
indicates HW is support for PTPv1/PTPv2.

We should use  - (priv->dma_cap.time_stamp ||
priv->dma_cap.atime_stamp) in ethtool_ts_ops.

wwr
Rayagond
>
> Does this seem reasonable?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Phil Reid
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html