[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2cc1a2ee-25f9-4201-8a17-c1280f618c90@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:57:25 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Intel Wired LAN <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
CC: Anthony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@...el.com>, Milena Olech
<milena.olech@...el.com>, Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ice: Separate TSPLL from PTP and cleanup
On 6/23/2025 5:29 PM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> This is the remaining 8 patches from the previous submission. I've rebased
> them on top of what Jakub pulled and deleted the control-flow macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> ---
> Jacob Keller (3):
> ice: clear time_sync_en field for E825-C during reprogramming
> ice: read TSPLL registers again before reporting status
> ice: default to TIME_REF instead of TXCO on E825-C
>
> Karol Kolacinski (5):
> ice: use bitfields instead of unions for CGU regs
> ice: add multiple TSPLL helpers
> ice: wait before enabling TSPLL
> ice: fall back to TCXO on TSPLL lock fail
> ice: move TSPLL init calls to ice_ptp.c
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.h | 212 +++-----------
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c | 2 +-
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp.c | 11 +
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c | 22 +-
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_tspll.c | 425 ++++++++++++++++++----------
> 5 files changed, 315 insertions(+), 357 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: 96c16c59b705d02c29f6bef54858b5da78c3fb13
> change-id: 20250417-kk-tspll-improvements-alignment-2cb078adf96
>
> Best regards,
Tony found a couple of nits in the earlier patches. My attempt at
mechanically removing the _OR_DIE macros ended up with a couple patches
inserting and then a later patch converting them back to the non-macro
form. I think he's working on fixing those and the ones applied will
have this issue resolved. Shows what I get for not doing patch-by-patch
testing and assuming I'd get merge conflicts for all of them...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists