Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 01:40:18 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@linutronix.de>,
        George McCollister <george.mccollister@gmail.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
        Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@intenta.de>,
        Paul Barker <pbarker@konsulko.com>,
        Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com>,
        Tristram Ha <Tristram.Ha@microchip.com>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/12] net: dsa: microchip: PTP support for
 KSZ956x
Message-ID: <20201118234018.jltisnhjesddt6kf@skbuf>
References: <20201118203013.5077-1-ceggers@arri.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201118203013.5077-1-ceggers@arri.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:30:01PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote:
> This series adds support for PTP to the KSZ956x and KSZ9477 devices.
> 
> There is only little documentation for PTP available on the data sheet
> [1] (more or less only the register reference). Questions to the
> Microchip support were seldom answered comprehensively or in reasonable
> time. So this is more or less the result of reverse engineering.

I will not have the time today, and probably not tomorrow, to review
this. I want to take some time to get more hands-on with the UDP
checksumming issues reported by Christian in the previous version (in
order to understand what the problem really is),
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1813904.kIZFssEuCH@n95hx1g2/
and I will probably only find time for that in the weekend. If anybody
feels like reviewing the series in the meantime, of course feel free to
do so.

One thing that should definitely not be part of this series though is
patch 11/12. Christian, given the conversation we had on your previous
patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201113025311.jpkplhmacjz6lkc5@skbuf/
as well as the documentation patch that was submitted in the meantime:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201117213826.18235-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de/
obviously you chose to completely disregard that. May we know why?
How are you even making use of the PTP_CLK_REQ_PPS feature?