[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240424191204.h2jajp57kpgccaql@DEN-DL-M31836.microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 21:12:04 +0200
From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
CC: <andrew@...n.ch>, <hkallweit1@...il.com>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <richardcochran@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: micrel: Add support for PTP_PF_EXTTS
for lan8814
The 04/24/2024 11:57, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
Hi Vadim,
>
> On 23/04/2024 20:57, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > Extend the PTP programmable gpios to implement also PTP_PF_EXTTS
> > function. The pins can be configured to capture both of rising
> > and falling edge. Once the event is seen, then an interrupt is
> > generated and the LTC is saved in the registers.
> > On lan8814 only GPIO 3 can be configured for this.
> >
> > This was tested using:
> > ts2phc -m -l 7 -s generic -f ts2phc.cfg
> >
> > Where the configuration was the following:
> > ---
> > [global]
> > ts2phc.pin_index 3
> >
> > [eth0]
> > ---
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
>
> I'm not sure what happened to (fac63186f116 net: phy: micrel: Add
> support for PTP_PF_EXTTS for lan8841), looks like this patch is the
> rework previous with the limit to GPIO 3 only. In this case comments
> below are applicable.
These are two different PHYs:
1. lan8814 which is a quad PHY and the patch is this PHY
2. lan8841 which is a single PHY. And the commit that you mention it was
for that PHY.
So this commit is not rework of the commit that you mention.
...
>
> > +static int lan8814_ptp_extts(struct ptp_clock_info *ptpci,
> > + struct ptp_clock_request *rq, int on)
> > +{
> > + struct lan8814_shared_priv *shared = container_of(ptpci, struct lan8814_shared_priv,
> > + ptp_clock_info);
> > + struct phy_device *phydev = shared->phydev;
> > + int pin;
> > +
> > + if (rq->extts.flags & ~(PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE |
> > + PTP_EXTTS_EDGES |
> > + PTP_STRICT_FLAGS))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + pin = ptp_find_pin(shared->ptp_clock, PTP_PF_EXTTS,
> > + rq->extts.index);
> > + if (pin == -1 || pin != LAN8814_PTP_EXTTS_NUM)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> I'm not sure how will enable request pass this check?
> In lan8814_ptp_probe_once pins are initialized with PTP_PF_NONE,
> and ptp_find_pin will always return -1, which will end up with
> -EINVAL here and never hit lan8814_ptp_extts_on/lan8814_ptp_extts_off
>
Why ptp_find_pin will always return -1? Because we can set the function
of the pin.
...
> }
> > @@ -3148,6 +3263,10 @@ static int lan8814_ptpci_verify(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, unsigned int pin,
> > if (pin >= LAN8814_PTP_PEROUT_NUM || pin != chan)
> > return -1;
> > break;
> > + case PTP_PF_EXTTS:
> > + if (pin != LAN8814_PTP_EXTTS_NUM)
>
> Here the check states that exactly GPIO 3 can have EXTTS function, but
> later in the config...
...
>
> > + return -1;
> > + break;
> > default:
> > return -1;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -3541,7 +3721,7 @@ static int lan8814_ptp_probe_once(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > snprintf(shared->ptp_clock_info.name, 30, "%s", phydev->drv->name);
> > shared->ptp_clock_info.max_adj = 31249999;
> > shared->ptp_clock_info.n_alarm = 0;
> > - shared->ptp_clock_info.n_ext_ts = 0;
> > + shared->ptp_clock_info.n_ext_ts = LAN8814_PTP_EXTTS_NUM;
>
> Here ptp_clock is configured to have 3 pins supporting EXTTS.
> Looks like it should be n_ext_ts = 1;
Good point, let me have a look at this.
>
> > shared->ptp_clock_info.n_pins = LAN8814_PTP_GPIO_NUM;
> > shared->ptp_clock_info.pps = 0;
> > shared->ptp_clock_info.pin_config = shared->pin_config;
>
>
--
/Horatiu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists