> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 2:33 AM
> To: Kolacinski, Karol <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Nguyen, Anthony
> L
> <[email protected]>; Brandeburg, Jesse
> <[email protected]>; Keller, Jacob E <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 iwl-next 1/6] ice: introduce PTP state machine
>
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Karol Kolacinski wrote:
>
> Should there be a "From: Jacob" line here to
> match the Signed-off-by below?
>
> > Add PTP state machine so that the driver can correctly identify PTP
> > state around resets.
> > When the driver got information about ungraceful reset, PTP was not
> > prepared for reset and it returned error. When this situation occurs,
> > prepare PTP before rebuilding its structures.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
>
> Hi Karol and Jacob,
>
> FWIIW, The combination of both a Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by tag from
> Jacob seems a little odd to me. If he authored the patch then I would have
> gone with the following (along with the From line mentioned above):
>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <[email protected]>
>
> Otherwise, if he reviewed the patch I would have gone with:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <[email protected]>
>
It's a bit odd, because I authored the initial code and patches some time ago,
and Karol has been working to rebase and re-organize the code, so in some sense
he authored part of this. I think a Co-authored would be suitable here.
Additionally, I reviewed the result before it was published here.
Thanks,
Jake
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp.c
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -2640,6 +2676,16 @@ void ice_ptp_reset(struct ice_pf *pf)
> > int err, itr = 1;
> > u64 time_diff;
> >
> > + if (ptp->state != ICE_PTP_RESETTING) {
> > + if (ptp->state == ICE_PTP_READY) {
> > + ice_ptp_prepare_for_reset(pf);
> > + } else {
> > + err = -EINVAL;
> > + dev_err(ice_pf_to_dev(pf), "PTP was not initialized\n");
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> nit: perhaps this following is slightly nicer?
> (completely untested!)
>
> if (ptp->state == ICE_PTP_READY) {
> ice_ptp_prepare_for_reset(pf);
> } else if (ptp->state != ICE_PTP_RESETTING) {
> err = -EINVAL;
> dev_err(ice_pf_to_dev(pf), "PTP was not initialized\n");
> goto err;
> }
>
> > +
> > if (test_bit(ICE_PFR_REQ, pf->state) ||
> > !ice_pf_src_tmr_owned(pf))
> > goto pfr;
>
> ...
