[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM7PR04MB6885D1A865AD7E539DAA16F6F8CF0@AM7PR04MB6885.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:11 +0000
From: "Y.b. Lu" <yangbo.lu@....com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 6/6] ptp_ocelot: support 4 programmable pins
Hi Richard,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:16 PM
> To: Y.b. Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; David S . Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net>; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>;
> Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>; Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>;
> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>; Florian Fainelli
> <f.fainelli@...il.com>; Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>;
> Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ptp_ocelot: support 4 programmable pins
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:37:26PM +0800, Yangbo Lu wrote:
> > Support 4 programmable pins for only one function periodic
> > signal for now.
>
> For now?
Yes. The pin on Ocelot/Felix supports both PTP_PF_PEROUT and PTP_PF_EXTTS functions.
But the PTP_PF_EXTTS function should be implemented separately in Ocelot and Felix since hardware interrupt implementation is different on them.
I am responsible for Felix. However I am facing some issue on PTP_PF_EXTTS function on hardware. It may take a long time to discuss internally.
Thanks.
>
> > +static int ocelot_ptp_verify(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, unsigned int pin,
> > + enum ptp_pin_function func, unsigned int chan)
> > +{
> > + switch (func) {
> > + case PTP_PF_NONE:
> > + case PTP_PF_PEROUT:
> > + break;
>
> If the functions cannot be changed, then supporting the
> PTP_PIN_SETFUNC ioctl does not make sense!
Did you mean the dead lock issue? Or you thought the pin supported only PTP_PF_PEROUT function in hardware?
>
> > + case PTP_PF_EXTTS:
> > + case PTP_PF_PHYSYNC:
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists