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!