netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce IEP driver and packet timestamping support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8bb5a1eb-3912-c418-88fe-b3d8870e7157@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 18:06:11 +0530
From: Md Danish Anwar <a0501179@...com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
        MD
 Danish Anwar <danishanwar@...com>
CC: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Simon Horman
	<simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Andrew
 Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <nm@...com>, <srk@...com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce IEP driver and packet timestamping
 support

On 08/08/23 5:52 pm, Roger Quadros wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/08/2023 15:18, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
>> On 08/08/23 5:38 pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:30:43PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
>>>> This series introduces Industrial Ethernet Peripheral (IEP) driver to
>>>> support timestamping of ethernet packets and thus support PTP and PPS
>>>> for PRU ICSSG ethernet ports.
>>>>
>>>> This series also adds 10M full duplex support for ICSSG ethernet driver.
>>>>
>>>> There are two IEP instances. IEP0 is used for packet timestamping while IEP1
>>>> is used for 10M full duplex support.
>>>>
>>>> This is v2 of the series [v1]. It addresses comments made on [v1].
>>>> This series is based on linux-next(#next-20230807). 
>>>>
>>>> Changes from v1 to v2:
>>>> *) Addressed Simon's comment to fix reverse xmas tree declaration. Some APIs
>>>>    in patch 3 and 4 were not following reverse xmas tree variable declaration.
>>>>    Fixed it in this version.
>>>> *) Addressed Conor's comments and removed unsupported SoCs from compatible
>>>>    comment in patch 1. 
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I missed responding there before you sent v2, it was a bank
>>> holiday yesterday. I'm curious why you removed them, rather than just
>>> added them with a fallback to the ti,am654-icss-iep compatible, given
>>> your comment that "the same compatible currently works for all these
>>> 3 SoCs".
>>
>> I removed them as currently the driver is being upstreamed only for AM654x,
>> once I start up-streaming the ICSSG driver for AM64 and any other SoC. I will
>> add them here. If at that time we are still using same compatible, then I will
>> modify the comment otherwise add new compatible.
>>
>> As of now, I don't see the need of adding other SoCs in iep binding as IEP
>> driver up-streaming is only planned for AM654x as of now.
> 
> But, is there any difference in IEP hardware/driver for the other SoCs?
> AFAIK the same IP is used on all SoCs.
> 
> If there is no hardware/code change then we don't need to introduce a new compatible.
> The comment for all SoCs can already be there right from the start.
> 

There is no code change. The same compatible is used for other SoCs. Even if
the code is same I was thinking to keep the compatible as below now

- ti,am654-icss-iep   # for K3 AM65x SoCs

and once other SoCs are introduced, I will just modify the comment,

- ti,am654-icss-iep   # for K3 AM65x, AM64x SoCs

But we can also keep the all SoCs in comment right from start as well. I am
fine with both.

Conor / Roger, Please let me know which approach should I go with in next revision?

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Danish.