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:   Sun, 7 Nov 2021 16:27:03 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc:     Martin Kaistra <martin.kaistra@linutronix.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] net: dsa: b53: Expose PTP timestamping ioctls to
 userspace
Message-ID: <20211107142703.tid4l4onr6y2gxic@skbuf>
References: <20211104133204.19757-1-martin.kaistra@linutronix.de>
 <20211104133204.19757-8-martin.kaistra@linutronix.de>
 <20211104174251.GB32548@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <ba543ae4-3a71-13fe-fa82-600ac37eaf5a@linutronix.de>
 <20211105141319.GA16456@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <20211105142833.nv56zd5bqrkyjepd@skbuf>
 <20211106001804.GA24062@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <20211106003606.qvfkitgyzoutznlw@skbuf>
 <20211107140534.GB18693@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211107140534.GB18693@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 06:05:34AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 02:36:06AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 04:28:33PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > What is the expected convention exactly? There are other drivers that
> > > > downgrade the user application's request to what they support, and at
> > > > least ptp4l does not error out, it just prints a warning.
> > > 
> > > Drivers may upgrade, but they may not downgrade.
> > > 
> > > Which drivers downgrade?  We need to fix those buggy drivers.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Richard
> > 
> > Just a quick example
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.15/source/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c#L1178
> 
>         switch (cfg.rx_filter) {
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE:
>                 break;
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_EVENT:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_DELAY_REQ:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NTP_ALL:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_EVENT:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_SYNC:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_DELAY_REQ:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_SYNC:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_DELAY_REQ:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_SYNC:
>         case HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_DELAY_REQ:
>                 cfg.rx_filter = HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT;
>                 break;
>         default:
>                 mutex_unlock(&ocelot->ptp_lock);
>                 return -ERANGE;
>         }
> 
> That is essentially an upgrade to HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT.  The
> change from ALL to HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT is probably a simple
> oversight, and the driver can be easily fixed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard

It's essentially the same pattern as what Martin is introducing for b53.