Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: Remove ptp traps in case the ptp is not enabled.

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 05/17/2024 13:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 08:48:55AM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > Alternatively, the -EOPNOTSUPP check could be moved before programming
> > > > the traps in the first place.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > > Actually I don't think this alternative will work. In case of PHY
> > > timestamping, we would still like to add those rules regardless if
> > > ptp is enabled on lan966x.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > --
> > > /Horatiu
> > 
> > I don't understand why this would not have worked?
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> > index b12d3b8a64fd..1439a36e8394 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> > @@ -474,14 +474,14 @@ static int lan966x_port_hwtstamp_set(struct net_device *dev,
> >             cfg->source != HWTSTAMP_SOURCE_PHYLIB)
> >                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > 
> > +       if (cfg->source == HWTSTAMP_SOURCE_NETDEV && !port->lan966x->ptp)
> > +               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> 
> This should also work.
> Initially I thought you wanted to have only the check for
> port->lan966x->ptp here. And that is why I said it would not work.

Ok. I see the patch was marked as "changes requested". I think the
second alternative would be better anyway, because a requested
configuration which cannot be supported will be rejected outright,
rather than doing some stuff, figuring out it cannot be done, then
undoing what was done. Would you mind sending a v2 like this?