[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a733e3df-1fc3-41a1-9025-0eb02c5ffd0a@omp.ru>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 22:05:08 +0300
From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
To: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Claudiu
Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>, Paul Barker
<paul.barker.ct@...renesas.com>, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, Lad
Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next] net: ravb: Only advertise Rx/Tx timestamps if hardware
supports it
On 10/5/24 15:14, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> Recent work moving the reporting of Rx software timestamps to the core
> [1] highlighted an issue where hardware time stamping where advertised
> for the platforms where it is not supported.
>
> Fix this by covering advertising support for hardware timestamps only if
> the hardware supports it. Due to the Tx implementation in RAVB software
> Tx timestamping is also only considered if the hardware supports
> hardware timestamps. This should be addressed in future, but this fix
> only reflects what the driver currently implements.
>
> 1. Commit 277901ee3a26 ("ravb: Remove setting of RX software timestamp")
>
> Fixes: 7e09a052dc4e ("ravb: Exclude gPTP feature support for RZ/G2L")
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>
[...]
Reviewed-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> index d2a6518532f3..907af4651c55 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> @@ -1750,20 +1750,19 @@ static int ravb_get_ts_info(struct net_device *ndev,
> struct ravb_private *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> const struct ravb_hw_info *hw_info = priv->info;
>
> - info->so_timestamping =
> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE |
> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE |
> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE;
> - info->tx_types = (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_OFF) | (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_ON);
> - info->rx_filters =
> - (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE) |
> - (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT) |
> - (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL);
> - if (hw_info->gptp || hw_info->ccc_gac)
> + if (hw_info->gptp || hw_info->ccc_gac) {
> + info->so_timestamping =
> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE |
> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE |
> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE;
> + info->tx_types = (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_OFF) | (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_ON);
> + info->rx_filters =
> + (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE) |
> + (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT) |
> + (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL);
> info->phc_index = ptp_clock_index(priv->ptp.clock);
> - else
> - info->phc_index = 0;
Is it OK to remove this line?
> + }
[...]
MBR, Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists