netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] amd-xgbe: add hardware PTP 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5b5c68db-2500-4614-a0a8-b1f537e54238@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 18:06:37 +0530
From: "Rangoju, Raju" <raju.rangoju@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
 Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] amd-xgbe: add hardware PTP timestamping
 support



On 7/17/2025 5:32 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:28:11 +0530 Raju Rangoju wrote:
>>   	/* For Timestamp config */
>> -	int (*config_tstamp)(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int);
>> -	void (*update_tstamp_addend)(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int);
>> -	void (*set_tstamp_time)(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int sec,
>> +	void (*init_ptp)(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata);
>> +	void (*config_tstamp)(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>> +			      unsigned int mac_tscr);
>> +	void (*update_tstamp_addend)(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>> +				     unsigned int addend);
>> +	void (*set_tstamp_time)(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata, unsigned int sec,
>>   				unsigned int nsec);
>> +	void (*update_tstamp_time)(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>> +				   unsigned int sec,
>> +				   unsigned int nsec);
>>   	u64 (*get_tstamp_time)(struct xgbe_prv_data *);
>>   	u64 (*get_tx_tstamp)(struct xgbe_prv_data *);
> 
> Please start with removing this abstraction / callbacks instead of
> starting to used them. They each seem to have only one function
> assigned, and there isn't even a null check before calling.
> They make the code harder to follow and review.
> 
> The removal should be a separate patch for ease of review.

Sure, I'll send a separate patch for addressing the callbacks. In the 
meantime, I'll re-spin this patch with the changes.