From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC CPSW switchdev mode
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:42:13 -0500
Message-ID: <3531006d-6cdf-f0a1-a0ce-042194aece45@ti.com>
References: <1527144984-31236-1-git-send-email-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
 <20180524080528.GD2295@nanopsycho> <20180524084831.GA2759@apalos>
 <20180524125431.GB24557@lunn.ch>
 <7437d485-1eac-9619-3827-5af9b32b939e@redhat.com>
 <20180524140831.GA16793@apalos> <2b3cabca-4710-0a71-69c7-cc433e2b3062@ti.com>
 <20180603000831.GA14515@lunn.ch>
 <327df2cb-a0ad-c272-9b03-066d16ac14b6@ti.com> <20180605212840.GA3796@lunn.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>, <nsekhar@ti.com>,
        <francois.ozog@linaro.org>, <yogeshs@ti.com>, <spatton@ti.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fllnx210.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.17]:10051 "EHLO
        fllnx210.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751780AbeFEVmY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:42:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20180605212840.GA3796@lunn.ch>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>



On 06/05/2018 04:28 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> I hope you are right - question is always in number of available options
>> and which one to select - and, most important, explain it to the end user :(
> 
> The end customer being ptp4linux? At least for Marvell switches, it is
> happy about everything except that the switch is a bit slow, so we
> need to modify some of the time outs in the configuration file.
> 
>> For example:
>> phc_index is returned as part of .get_ts_info() = cpsw_get_ts_info(),
>> so which intf should return phc_index?
> 
> It is not a 1:1 relationship. See:
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c#L61
> 
> All interfaces return the same index.
> 
> In fact, for a switch, having a PHC per port would be odd. That would
> mean you need to sync the PHCs in order to act as a boundary clock.

PHC only one, but hw timestamping blocks are per port.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii