> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cochran
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 4:27 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; Intel Wired LAN
> ;
> Kirsher, Jeffrey T ; Brandon Streiff
>
> Subject: Re: [net-next v3 3/7] mv88e6xxx: reject unsup
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 07:36:31PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> Right, so in practice, unless it supports both edges, it should reject
> setting both RISING and FALLING together.
Enforcing that now *could* break existing user space, but I wonder
whether any programs would actually be affected.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cochran
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 11:24 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; Intel Wired LAN
> ;
> Kirsher, Jeffrey T ; Brandon Streiff
>
> Subject: Re: [net-next v3 3/7] mv88e6xxx: reject unsup
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:11:05AM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> Fix the mv88e6xxx PTP support to explicitly reject any future flags that
> get added to the external timestamp request ioctl.
>
> In order to maintain currently functioning code, this patch accepts all
> three current flags. This is b
Fix the mv88e6xxx PTP support to explicitly reject any future flags that
get added to the external timestamp request ioctl.
In order to maintain currently functioning code, this patch accepts all
three current flags. This is because the PTP_RISING_EDGE and
PTP_FALLING_EDGE flags have unclear seman
