[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h7rhv8g8.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:32:23 -0700
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, sasha.neftin@...el.com,
andre.guedes@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next-queue v1 1/3] Revert "PCI: Make pci_enable_ptm()
private"
Hi,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 04:28:32PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> Make pci_enable_ptm() accessible from the drivers.
>>
>> Even if PTM still works on the platform I am using without calling
>> this this function, it might be possible that it's not always the
>> case.
>
> *Does* PTM work on your system without calling pci_enable_ptm()? If
> so, I think that would mean the BIOS enabled PTM, and that seems
> slightly surprising.
>
At least it seems to work, yeah, the PTM related registers that I need
for cross timestamping still return valid results when I don't call
pci_enable_ptm().
Btw, I just noticed a typo in the commit message, will fix it for the
v2.
>> Exposing this to the driver enables the driver to use the
>> 'ptm_enabled' field of 'pci_dev' to check if PTM is enabled or not.
>>
>> This reverts commit ac6c26da29c12fa511c877c273ed5c939dc9e96c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
>
> AFAICT we just never had any callers at all for pci_enable_ptm(). I
> probably shouldn't have merged it in the first place.
>
> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
>
Thanks.
--
Vinicius
Powered by blists - more mailing lists