Messages in this thread | | | From | "Y.b. Lu" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 6/6] ptp_ocelot: support 4 programmable pins | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:47:55 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:00 PM > To: Y.b. Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; David S . Miller > <davem@davemloft.net>; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>; > Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>; Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>; > Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>; Florian Fainelli > <f.fainelli@gmail.com>; Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>; > Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ptp_ocelot: support 4 programmable pins > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:34:52AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote: > > > Of course, that is horrible, and I am going to find a way to fix it. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > Do you think it is ok to move protection into ptp_set_pinfunc() to protect > just pin_config accessing? > > ptp_disable_pinfunc() not touching pin_config could be out of protection. > > But it seems indeed total ptp_set_pinfunc() should be under protection... > > Yes, and I have way to fix that. I will post a patch soon... > > > I could modify commit messages to indicate the pin supports both > PTP_PF_PEROUT and PTP_PF_EXTTS, and PTP_PF_EXTTS support will be added > in the future. > > Thanks for explaining. Since you do have programmable pin, please > wait for my patch to fix the deadlock.
Thanks a lot. Will wait your fix-up.
Best regards, Yangbo Lu
> > Thanks, > Richard
| |