> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 11:04 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>
> Cc: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.ngu...@intel.com>; Kitszel, Przemyslaw
> <przemyslaw.kits...@intel.com>; Andrew Lunn <andrew+net...@lunn.ch>; David
> S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>; Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>; Jakub
> Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com>; Richard Cochran
> <richardcoch...@gmail.com>; Ruud Bos <kernel....@gmail.com>; Paul Barker
> <paul.barker...@bp.renesas.com>; Niklas Söderlund
> <niklas.soderl...@ragnatech.se>; Bryan Whitehead
> <bryan.whiteh...@microchip.com>; unglinuxdri...@microchip.com; Raju
> Lakkaraju <raju.lakkar...@microchip.com>; Florian Fainelli
> <florian.faine...@broadcom.com>; Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-
> kernel-feedback-l...@broadcom.com>; Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>; Heiner
> Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com>; Russell King <li...@armlinux.org.uk>; 
> Jonathan
> Lemon <jonathan.le...@gmail.com>; Lasse Johnsen <l...@ssejohnsen.me>; Vadim
> Fedorenko <vadim.fedore...@linux.dev>; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org;
> net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-renesas-...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/5] igb: reject invalid external timestamp requests 
> for
> 82580-based HW
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:16:36PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > The igb_ptp_feature_enable_82580 function correctly checks that unknown
> > flags are not passed to the function. However, it does not actually check
> > PTP_RISING_EDGE or PTP_FALLING_EDGE when configuring the external
> timestamp
> > function.
> >
> > The data sheet for the 82580 product says:
> >
> >   Upon a change in the input level of one of the SDP pins that was
> >   configured to detect Time stamp events using the TSSDP register, a time
> >   stamp of the system time is captured into one of the two auxiliary time
> >   stamp registers (AUXSTMPL/H0 or AUXSTMPL/H1).
> >
> >   For example to define timestamping of events in the AUXSTMPL0 and
> >   AUXSTMPH0 registers, Software should:
> >
> >   1. Set the TSSDP.AUX0_SDP_SEL field to select the SDP pin that detects
> >      the level change and set the TSSDP.AUX0_TS_SDP_EN bit to 1.
> >
> >   2. Set the TSAUXC.EN_TS0 bit to 1 to enable timestamping
> >
> > The same paragraph is in the i350 and i354 data sheets.
> >
> > The wording implies that the time stamps are captured at any level change.
> > There does not appear to be any way to only timestamp one edge of the
> > signal.
> >
> > Reject requests which do not set both PTP_RISING_EDGE and
> PTP_FALLING_EDGE
> > when operating under PTP_STRICT_FLAGS mode via PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST2.
> >
> > Fixes: 38970eac41db ("igb: support EXTTS on 82580/i354/i350")
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ptp.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ptp.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ptp.c
> > index
> f9457055612004c10f74379122063e8136fe7d76..b89ef4538a18d7ca11325ddc
> 15944a878f4d807e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ptp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ptp.c
> > @@ -509,6 +509,11 @@ static int igb_ptp_feature_enable_82580(struct
> ptp_clock_info *ptp,
> >                                     PTP_STRICT_FLAGS))
> >                     return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > +           /* Both the rising and falling edge are timstamped */
> > +           if (rq->extts.flags & PTP_STRICT_FLAGS &&
> > +               (rq->extts.flags & PTP_EXTTS_EDGES) != PTP_EXTTS_EDGES)
> > +                   return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> >             if (on) {
> >                     pin = ptp_find_pin(igb->ptp_clock, PTP_PF_EXTTS,
> >                                        rq->extts.index);
> 
> Thanks for fixing
> Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com>
> 
> In igb_ptp_feature_enable_i210() there is the same check for both edges
> but also PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE is tested. There is no need for it here, or
> it is redundant even in i210?

This needs a v2 with the flag check modified. Will fix, thanks for spotting it!

> 
> >
> > --
> > 2.48.1.397.gec9d649cc640

Reply via email to