Messages in this thread | | | From | Kurt Kanzenbach <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/7] net: dsa: b53: Expose PTP timestamping ioctls to userspace | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:42:32 +0100 |
| |
On Thu Nov 25 2021, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 06:48:24AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 04:27:03PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> > On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 06:05:34AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: >> > > switch (cfg.rx_filter) { >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE: >> > > break; >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_EVENT: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_DELAY_REQ: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NTP_ALL: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_EVENT: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_SYNC: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_DELAY_REQ: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_SYNC: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_DELAY_REQ: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_SYNC: >> > > case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_DELAY_REQ: >> > > cfg.rx_filter = HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT; >> > > break; >> > > default: >> > > mutex_unlock(&ocelot->ptp_lock); >> > > return -ERANGE; >> > > } >> > > >> > > That is essentially an upgrade to HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT. The >> > > change from ALL to HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT is probably a simple >> > > oversight, and the driver can be easily fixed. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Richard >> > >> > It's essentially the same pattern as what Martin is introducing for b53. >> >> Uh, no it isn't. The present patch has: >> >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT: >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_SYNC: >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_DELAY_REQ: >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT: >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_SYNC: >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_DELAY_REQ: >> + case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL: >> + config->rx_filter = HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT; >> >> There is an important difference between >> HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT and HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT >> >> Notice the "L2" in there. > > Richard, when the request is PTP_V2_EVENT and the response is > PTP_V2_L2_EVENT, is that an upgrade or a downgrade?
It is a downgrade, isn't it?
> PTP_V2_EVENT also includes PTP_V2_L4_EVENT.
Yes, exactly.
Thanks, Kurt [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |