[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRYN-r7T9tz2eLip@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 16:57:30 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Andrei Botila <andrei.botila@....nxp.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/9] phy: add hwtstamp_get callback to phy
drivers
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 04:48:00PM +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> If the above is correct, then yes, there is no reason to implement
> SIOCGHWTSTAMP, and even more, SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be technically removed
> as a dead code.
I think you're missing the clarification in this sentence "... to
implement SIOCGHWTSTAMP in phy_mii_ioctl(), and even more,
SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be removed from this function as dead code.""
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists