> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 11:24 AM > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; Intel Wired LAN > <intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org>; > Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>; Brandon Streiff > <brandon.stre...@ni.com> > Subject: Re: [net-next v3 3/7] mv88e6xxx: reject unsupported external > timestamp flags > > 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 because the PTP_RISING_EDGE and > > PTP_FALLING_EDGE flags have unclear semantics > > For the record, the semantics are (or should be): > > flags Meaning > ---------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------- > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE invalid > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE Time stamp rising edge > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp falling > edge > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp > both edges > > > and each driver seems to > > have interpreted them slightly differently. > > This driver has: > > flags Meaning > ---------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------- > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE Time stamp falling > edge > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE Time stamp rising edge > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp falling > edge > PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE|PTP_RISING_EDGE|PTP_FALLING_EDGE Time stamp > rising edge > > > Cc: Brandon Streiff <brandon.stre...@ni.com> > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>
Right, so in practice, unless it supports both edges, it should reject setting both RISING and FALLING together. Thanks, Jake
