Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I've tried to collect and summarize the conclusions of these discussions: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200711120842.2631-1-sorganov@xxxxxxxxx/ > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200710113611.3398-5-kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > which were a bit surprising to me. Make sure they are present in the > documentation. As one of participants of these discussions, I'm afraid I incline to alternative approach to solving the issues current design has than the one you advocate in these patch series. I believe its upper-level that should enforce common policies like handling hw time stamping at outermost capable device, not random MAC driver out there. I'd argue that it's then upper-level that should check PHY features, and then do not bother MAC with ioctl() requests that MAC should not handle in given configuration. This way, the checks for phy_has_hwtstamp() won't be spread over multiple MAC drivers and will happily sit in the upper-level ioctl() handler. In other words, I mean that it's approach taken in ethtool that I tend to consider being the right one. Thanks, -- Sergey
