[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN3PR07MB2516525EBCC11BE7E5AC3ADBC9760@BN3PR07MB2516.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:06:33 +0000
From: Rafal Ozieblo <rafalo@...ence.com>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Harini Katakam <harinikatakamlinux@...il.com>
CC: Andrei Pistirica <andrei.pistirica@...rochip.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"harini.katakam@...inx.com" <harini.katakam@...inx.com>,
"punnaia@...inx.com" <punnaia@...inx.com>,
"michals@...inx.com" <michals@...inx.com>,
"anirudh@...inx.com" <anirudh@...inx.com>,
"boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com"
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
"alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com"
<alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
"tbultel@...elsurmer.com" <tbultel@...elsurmer.com>,
"richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for
MACB/GEM
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicolas Ferre [mailto:nicolas.ferre@...el.com]
>Sent: 27 stycznia 2017 11:28
>Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for MACB/GEM
>
>Le 27/01/2017 à 11:26, Rafal Ozieblo a écrit :
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Harini Katakam [mailto:harinikatakamlinux@...il.com]
>>> Sent: 27 stycznia 2017 06:43
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for MACB/GEM
>>>
>>> Hi Rafal,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Rafal Ozieblo <rafalo@...ence.com> wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Andrei Pistirica [mailto:andrei.pistirica@...rochip.com]
>>>>> Sent: 19 stycznia 2017 16:56
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] macb: Common code to enable ptp support for MACB/GEM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline bool gem_has_ptp(struct macb *bp)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return !!(bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_GEM_HAS_PTP);
>>>>> +}
>>>> Why don't you use hardware capabilities here? Would it be better to read it from hardware instead adding it to many configuration?
>>>
>>> If you are referring to TSU bit in DCFG5, then we will be relying on
>>> Cadence IP's information irrespective of the SoC capability
>>> and whether the PTP support was adequate.
>>> I think the capability approach gives better control and
>>> it is not really much to add.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Harini
>>>
>> Yes, I'm referring to TSU bit.
>> What if SoC contains multiple Cadence GEMs, some with PTP support and others without?
>
>Simply define different DT compatibility strings and we're good.
What with GEM on PCI ? There is no DT.
>> Relevant will be checking both, hardware capabilities and SoC capabilities from "caps" field.
>>
>
>
>--
>Nicolas Ferre
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists