netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/9] net: dsa: PTP timestamping for mv88e6xxx

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <8828c5c3-fe0f-c8d0-0a19-f173001de607@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:51:00 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@...com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Erik Hons <erik.hons@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/9] net: dsa: PTP timestamping for mv88e6xxx

On 09/28/2017 10:36 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> - Patch #3: The GPIO config support is handled in a very simple manner.
>>   I suspect a longer term goal would be to use pinctrl here.
> 
> I assume ptp already has the core code to use pinctrl and Linux
> standard GPIOs? What does the device tree binding look like? How do
> you specify the GPIOs to use?
> 
> What we want to avoid is defining an ABI now, otherwise it is going to
> be hard to swap to pinctrl later.
> 
>> - Patch #6: the dsa_switch pointer and port index is plumbed from
>>   dsa_device_ops::rcv so that we can call the correct port_rxtstamp
>>   method. This involved instrumenting all of the *_tag_rcv functions in
>>   a way that's kind of a kludge and that I'm not terribly happy with.
> 
> Yes, this is ugly. I will see if i can find a better way to do
> this. 

See my reply in patch 6, I may be missing something, but once
dst->rdcv() has been called, skb->dev points to the slave network device
which already contains the switch port and switch information in
dsa_slave_priv, so that should lift the need for asking the individual
taggers' rcv() callback to tell us about it.
-- 
Florian