[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181007192341.rkwqxxhjqf4dctkl@localhost>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 12:23:41 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 net-next 4/5] net: mdio: of: Register discovered MII
time stampers.
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:14:38AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> There appears to be a binding document missing to describe what a
> timerstamper provider is. Using a more specific name than
> "#phandle-cells" is preferred when dealing with specific devices, e.g:
>
> interrupt-controller/#interrupt-cells
> clocks/#clock-cells
Sure.
> So I would go with #timestamp-cells here, and define what the cell sie
> and format should be in a separate "dt-bindings" prefixed patch that the
> Device Tree folks can also comment on.
I documented this in the last patch. I didn't see any example in our
device tree that explains a "reference" like this that is not
connected to a specific node type.
>
> > + if (err == -ENOENT)
> > + return NULL;
> > + else if (err)
> > + return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +
> > + if (args.args_count >= 1)
> > + port = args.args[0];
>
> If it's greater than one, than it is an error, and it should be flagged
> as such.
I wanted to allow specific MII time stamping drivers to use one than
one value in the future, should the need arise.
> The idea looks good though, should of_find_mii_timestamper() somehow be
> made conditional to CONFIG_PTP and we should have a stub for when it is
> disabled?
Do you mean CONFIG_NETWORK_PHY_TIMESTAMPING ?
There is a stub for that.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists