Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PTP: add support for one-shot output

From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher S Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PTP: add support for one-shot output
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:00:20 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r253ulpn.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190829172848.GC2166@localhost>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1969 bytes --]

Hi,

Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> writes:
> Adding davem onto CC...
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:58:25PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
>> index 98ec1395544e..a407e5f76e2d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
>> @@ -177,9 +177,8 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>  			err = -EFAULT;
>>  			break;
>>  		}
>> -		if ((req.perout.flags || req.perout.rsv[0] || req.perout.rsv[1]
>> -				|| req.perout.rsv[2] || req.perout.rsv[3])
>> -			&& cmd == PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST2) {
>> +		if ((req.perout.rsv[0] || req.perout.rsv[1] || req.perout.rsv[2]
>> +			|| req.perout.rsv[3]) && cmd == PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST2) {
>
> Please check that the reserved bits of req.perout.flags, namely
> ~PTP_PEROUT_ONE_SHOT, are clear.

Actually, we should check more. PEROUT_FEATURE_ENABLE is still valid
here, right? So are RISING and FALLING edges, no?

>
>>  			err = -EINVAL;
>>  			break;
>>  		} else if (cmd == PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST) {
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h b/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h
>> index 039cd62ec706..95840e5f5c53 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h
>> @@ -67,7 +67,9 @@ struct ptp_perout_request {
>>  	struct ptp_clock_time start;  /* Absolute start time. */
>>  	struct ptp_clock_time period; /* Desired period, zero means disable. */
>>  	unsigned int index;           /* Which channel to configure. */
>> -	unsigned int flags;           /* Reserved for future use. */
>> +
>> +#define PTP_PEROUT_ONE_SHOT BIT(0)
>> +	unsigned int flags;
>
> @davem  Any CodingStyle policy on #define within a struct?  (Some
> maintainers won't allow it.)

seems like this should be defined together with the other flags? If
that's the case, it seems like we would EXTTS and PEROUT masks.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]