[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cba0d678-259b-7802-85c1-0cb15dcbb63f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:49:45 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>,
habetsm.xilinx@...il.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, richardcochran@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] sfc: support PTP over IPv6/UDP
On 31/08/2022 11:16, Íñigo Huguet wrote:
> commit bd4a2697e5e2 ("sfc: use hardware tx timestamps for more than
> PTP") added support for hardware timestamping on TX for cards of the
> 8000 series and newer, in an effort to provide support for other
> transports other than IPv4/UDP.
>
> However, timestamping was still not working on RX for these other
> transports. This patch add support for PTP over IPv6/UDP.
>
> Tested: sync as master and as slave is correct using ptp4l from linuxptp
> package, both with IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> Suggested-by: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>
> ---
<snip>> - rc = efx_filter_insert_filter(efx, &rxfilter, true);
> + int rc = efx_filter_insert_filter(efx, rxfilter, true);
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
> -
> ptp->rxfilters[ptp->rxfilters_count] = rc;
> ptp->rxfilters_count++;
> -
> return 0;
> }
These whitespace changes seem like churn given that this code was
added in patch #1. If respinning maybe make the two consistent?
-ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists