On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 03:39:37PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> Commit d21c2fe6e5a1 ("net/iavf: fix check for PF Rx timestamp support")
> added a check against whether the PF has actually enabled Rx
> timestamping in iavf_dev_info_get(). Unfortunately, this function may be
> called prior to the PTP capabilities being exchanged, which results in
> Rx timestamping not being supported.
>
> Fix this by checking the PF PTP capabilities near the end of
> iavf_dev_init(). This ensures the VF knows the capabilities at the point
> where the iavf_dev_info_get() function can be called. Doing the check at
> init is better than inside the info callback, as the info callback is
> called many times.
>
> The capability exchange in iavf_dev_start() is kept to ensure that
> capabilities are updated after resets.
>
> Fixes: d21c2fe6e5a1 ("net/iavf: fix check for PF Rx timestamp support")
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
> ---
> My recent fix to prevent enabling Rx timestamping on PFs which do support
> PTP capability but do not report Rx timestamping accidentally broke PFs
> which *do* support Rx timestamping. This is because the driver did not
> exchange capability before reporting its device info. Fix this by checking
> PF capabilities during iavf_dev_init().
> ---
> drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> b/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> index 3ef766de4704..9b07b11a6b51 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> @@ -2887,6 +2887,14 @@ iavf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> }
> }
>
> + /* Get PTP caps early to verify device capabilities */
> + if (vf->vf_res->vf_cap_flags & VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PTP) {
> + if (iavf_get_ptp_cap(adapter)) {
> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to get ptp capability");
> + goto security_init_err;
> + }
> + }
> +
With this code added here, do we still need to keep - or should we keep -
the existing call in iavf_dev_start()? I would have expected the call to
iavf_get_ptp_cap to be moved rather than duplicated. Is there a reason
to keep the existing call?
/Bruce
