[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251031113840.067ef711@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:38:40 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Sudarsana Kalluru
<skalluru@...vell.com>, Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, Marco
Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>, Andrew Lunn
<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Sunil
Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Vladimir Oltean
<vladimir.oltean@....com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jacob Keller
<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: pch_gbe: convert to use ndo_hwtstamp
callbacks
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:35:25 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
> > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC:
> > - adapter->hwts_rx_en = 0;
> > + adapter->hwts_rx_en = cfg->rx_filter;
>
> It seems there is a functional change here.
>
> > pch_ch_control_write(pdev, SLAVE_MODE | CAP_MODE0);
Good catch. Looks like SLAVE | MODE0 translates to 0 | 0
so presumably the device doesn't actually support timestamping
of V1 L4 SYNC messages? Unclear what to do about this.
Maybe let's leave it be? keep the hwts_rx_en = 0; ?
Not strictly correct but at least we won't break anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists