[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191012182409.GD3165@localhost>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 11:24:09 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Intel Wired LAN <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Jeffrey Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@...com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v3 3/7] mv88e6xxx: reject unsupported external
timestamp flags
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:11:05AM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> Fix the mv88e6xxx PTP support to explicitly reject any future flags that
> get added to the external timestamp request ioctl.
>
> In order to maintain currently functioning code, this patch accepts all
> three current flags. This is because the PTP_RISING_EDGE and
> PTP_FALLING_EDGE flags have unclear semantics
For the record, the semantics are (or should be):
flags Meaning
---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE invalid
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE Time stamp rising edge
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp falling edge
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp both edges
> and each driver seems to
> have interpreted them slightly differently.
This driver has:
flags Meaning
---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE Time stamp falling edge
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE Time stamp rising edge
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp falling edge
PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp rising edge
> Cc: Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists