Hi Jakub,
On 21.06.2023 06:31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 16:28:51 +0300 Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
Subject: [PATCH net v3 1/1] net: phy: nxp-c45-tja11xx: fix the PTP interrupt enablig/disabling
typo: enablig -> enabling
.config_intr() handles only the link event interrupt and should
disable/enable the PTP interrupt also.
I don't understand this sentence, TBH, could you rephrase? >
Fixes: 514def5dd339 ("phy: nxp-c45-tja11xx: add timestamping support")
For a fix we really need to commit message to say what the problem is,
in terms which will be understood by the user. User visible behavior.
If tools like ptp4l are killed, will leave egress timestamp interrupt
enabled. And I would like to say that I was able to trigger any bug
related to this, but I wasn't. So, I don't have any bad behaviour to
describe :)
However, now I realize that disabling all the PTP IRQs is not a smart
way to fix this virtual pseudo issue.
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.15+
Signed-off-by: Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) <radu-nicolae.pirea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Where is V1?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230410124856.287753-1-radu-nicolae.pirea@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Where is V2?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230616135323
This link looks cut off.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230616135323.98215-2-radu-nicolae.pirea@xxxxxxxxxxx/
+ /* 0x807A register is not present on SJA1110 PHYs. */
Meaning? It's safe because the operation will be ignored?
Yes. The PHY will ignore the writes and will return 0 on reads.
--
pw-bot: cr
--
Radu P.
