On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:32:45PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 07:38:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > What I ended up doing was:
> >
> > if (ops->get_ts_info) {
> > ret = ops->get_ts_info(dev, info);
> > if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > return ret;
> > }
> > if (phy_has_tsinfo(phydev))
> > return phy_ts_info(phydev, info);
> > ...
> >
> > which gives the MAC first refusal. If the MAC wishes to defer to
> > phylib or the default, it can just return -EOPNOTSUPP.
>
> I guess that makes sense. If someone designs a board that happens to
> have a PHY with unwanted time stamping fcunctionality, then at least
> the MAC time stamping function will work. If the designers really
> want PHY time stamping, then they are likely to have to patch the MAC
> driver in any case.
>
> So I'm not against such a change. It would be important to keep the
> current "PHY-friendly" MAC drivers still friendly, and so they would
> need patching as part of the change.
That would only be necessary if they also provide the get_ts_info
method.
So, I guess I need to find all drivers that refer to phylink or phylib
functions, that also implement get_ts_info method and review them.
I would expect that to be very small, since there's currently little
point implementing PTP at both the PHY and the MAC for the reason I've
raised earlier in this thread.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
