[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250512155846.vbmc3wrvpidbzxqc@skbuf>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 18:58:46 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: stmmac: convert to ndo_hwtstamp_get() and
ndo_hwtstamp_set()
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 04:50:35PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 12/05/2025 15:36, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > New timestamping API was introduced in commit 66f7223039c0 ("net: add
> > NDOs for configuring hardware timestamping") from kernel v6.6. It is
> > time to convert the stmmac driver to the new API, so that the
> > ndo_eth_ioctl() path can be removed completely.
>
> The conversion to the new API looks good, but stmmac_ioctl() isn't
> removed keeping ndo_eth_ioctl() path in place. Did I miss something in
> the patch?
I was never intending with this work to remove ndo_eth_ioctl()
completely, but instead to completely remove the timestamping
configuration path that goes through ndo_eth_ioctl(). I apologize for
any false marketing and I will be more explicit about this in further
patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists