On 24/08/23 12:17 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/08/2023 13:32, MD Danish Anwar wrote: >> From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> >> >> Add packet timestamping TS and PTP PHC clock support. >> >> For AM65x and AM64x: >> - IEP1 is not used >> - IEP0 is configured in shadow mode with 1ms cycle and shared between >> Linux and FW. It provides time and TS in number cycles, so special >> conversation in ns is required. >> - IEP0 shared between PRUeth ports. >> - IEP0 supports PPS, periodic output. >> - IEP0 settime() and enabling PPS required FW interraction. >> - RX TS provided with each packet in CPPI5 descriptor. >> - TX TS returned through separate ICSSG hw queues for each port. TX TS >> readiness is signaled by INTC IRQ. Only one packet at time can be requested >> for TX TS. >> >> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> >> Co-developed-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> > > How patch author could review or not review its own code? How does it > even work? I write a patch and for example judge - oh no, it is wrong, > but I will still send it, just without my review. Or I write a patch - > oh, I like it, I wrote excellent code, let me add review tag for my own > code! > He didn't review this patch explicitly. He gave RB for entire series, b4 [1] must have added his RB to all patches instead of only adding to those patches for which he is not the author. I will manually remove his RBs in the patches where he is the author. [1] https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/index.html >> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Where? > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- Thanks and Regards, Danish.
