On 10/8/24 8:45 PM, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
[...]
> Sorry for missing your comment earlier.
I prolly shouldn't have stamped my R-b tag so easily before
asking a question. :-)
[...]
>>>> Recent work moving the reporting of Rx software timestamps to the core
>>>> [1] highlighted an issue where hardware time stamping where advertised
s/where/was/.
>>>> for the platforms where it is not supported.
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by covering advertising support for hardware timestamps only if
>>>> the hardware supports it. Due to the Tx implementation in RAVB software
>>>> Tx timestamping is also only considered if the hardware supports
>>>> hardware timestamps. This should be addressed in future, but this fix
>>>> only reflects what the driver currently implements.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Commit 277901ee3a26 ("ravb: Remove setting of RX software timestamp")
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 7e09a052dc4e ("ravb: Exclude gPTP feature support for RZ/G2L")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
>>>> index d2a6518532f3..907af4651c55 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
>>>> @@ -1750,20 +1750,19 @@ static int ravb_get_ts_info(struct net_device *ndev,
>>>> struct ravb_private *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
>>>> const struct ravb_hw_info *hw_info = priv->info;
>>>>
>>>> - info->so_timestamping =
>>>> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
>>>> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE |
>>>> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE |
>>>> - SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE;
>>>> - info->tx_types = (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_OFF) | (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_ON);
>>>> - info->rx_filters =
>>>> - (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE) |
>>>> - (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT) |
>>>> - (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL);
>>>> - if (hw_info->gptp || hw_info->ccc_gac)
>>>> + if (hw_info->gptp || hw_info->ccc_gac) {
>>>> + info->so_timestamping =
>>>> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
>>>> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE |
>>>> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE |
>>>> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE;
>>>> + info->tx_types = (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_OFF) | (1 << HWTSTAMP_TX_ON);
>>>> + info->rx_filters =
>>>> + (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE) |
>>>> + (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT) |
>>>> + (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL);
>>>> info->phc_index = ptp_clock_index(priv->ptp.clock);
>>>> - else
>>>> - info->phc_index = 0;
>>>
>>> Is it OK to remove this line?
>
> Yes it is OK, see the discussion that sparked this patch.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240829204429.GA3708622@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
Ah, now I'm seeing where that 0 came from... :-)
>> Also, how about inverting the *if* condition above (and doing an early
>> *return*) and avoiding reindenting the code below it?
>
> I thought about that but opted not to do so. The same check is used all
> over the code and I think it's value in keeping it similar. I will go
> over all this code again as Gen4 will need more work to fully enable
> gPTP. My hope is to abstract the check into something bore descriptive
s/bore/more/? :-)
> instead of sprinkling yet more conditions on to this one. Is it OK for
> you to keep them aligned for now?
Fine by me.
>> [...]
MBR, Sergey
