Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 09:06:06 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc:     Naveen Mamindlapalli <naveenm@marvell.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sgoutham@marvell.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 0/4] Add PTP support for CN10K silicon
Message-ID: <20220804090606.0c892e51@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Yus4QrgERE9yR9WG@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
References: <20220730115758.16787-1-naveenm@marvell.com>
        <20220802121439.4d784f47@kernel.org>
        <20220802214420.10e3750f@kernel.org>
        <Yus4QrgERE9yR9WG@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:08:50 -0700 Richard Cochran wrote:
> > Oh, well. These will have to wait until after the merge window then :(  
> 
> FWIW - I'm okay with any PTP patches that are about specific hardware
> drivers.  When I can, I'll review them for proper use of the core
> layer, locking, etc, but at the end of the day, only the people
> holding the data sheet know how to talk to the hardware.
> 
> Patches that touch the core layer are another story.  These need
> careful review by me and other.  (Obviously)

I was hoping you could cast an eye over the 1-step implementation here.
Giving the device a random time reference along the packet looks odd.
Unfortunately I don't have much (any?) experience with 1-step myself so
I can't trust my own judgment all that much.