From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 384A11D2F0 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 22:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A561C433C8; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 22:50:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1691621423; bh=d8fqHLUBifTkUQGLp60CBi6upU3g/APJywI4LSpujRk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vMJb2fALDbcVGxRtmYaXHBvAMecaa9bad9cF2DpNnsGbEtdGT5hlKHsIXxNmooynf 2Q8oLgqytjJ5PC5KMEk/fTnJBT2yY+rBnk8q//WLzp74eGHhZq3QBi2hGlteWuMHXu Gcu5k8U8ub/3tMPqCdxw4vIURBFedINnjcPwq2vNlF/h4S9wKiibwKOy7Wy6e+Z82f pkoN+fqvbYM2upeaLVahNou8oVsR1XN303lTCqaAmLjIGKWcWwviJ22wuT9740MZT6 PP+T87eLNdbH206u1OhhqEhALbKX2+BB3ZsnFcWXl7GtmcxWIZ2cnIaoKN+dErzX4p HtOfNHWAWZcMA== Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:50:22 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Sai Krishna Cc: , , , , , , , , , , Naveen Mamindlapalli Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2] octeontx2-pf: Use PTP HW timestamp counter atomic update feature Message-ID: <20230809155022.132a69a7@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20230807140535.3070350-1-saikrishnag@marvell.com> References: <20230807140535.3070350-1-saikrishnag@marvell.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:35:35 +0530 Sai Krishna wrote: > Some of the newer silicon versions in CN10K series supports a feature > where in the current PTP timestamp in HW can be updated atomically > without losing any cpu cycles unlike read/modify/write register. > This patch uses this feature so that PTP accuracy can be improved > while adjusting the master offset in HW. There is no need for SW > timecounter when using this feature. So removed references to SW > timecounter wherever appropriate. > -#include "ptp.h" > #include "mbox.h" > #include "rvu.h" > +#include "ptp.h" If you reorder the includes - maybe put them in alphabetical order? > static bool cn10k_ptp_errata(struct ptp *ptp) > { > - if (ptp->pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CN10K_A_PTP || > - ptp->pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CNF10K_A_PTP) > + if ((is_ptp_dev_cn10ka(ptp) && > + ((ptp->pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x0 || (ptp->pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x1)) || > + (is_ptp_dev_cnf10ka(ptp) && > + ((ptp->pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x0 || (ptp->pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x1))) Please refactor the revision check to avoid these long lines repeating the same logic > return true; > + > return false; > } > > -static bool is_ptp_tsfmt_sec_nsec(struct ptp *ptp) > +static bool is_tstmp_atomic_update_supported(struct rvu *rvu) > { > - if (ptp->pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CN10K_A_PTP || > - ptp->pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CNF10K_A_PTP) > - return true; > - return false; > + struct ptp *ptp = rvu->ptp; > + struct pci_dev *pdev; > + > + if (is_rvu_otx2(rvu)) > + return false; > + > + pdev = ptp->pdev; > + > + /* On older silicon variants of CN10K, atomic update feature > + * is not available. > + */ > + if ((pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CN10K_A_PTP && > + (pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x0) || > + (pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CN10K_A_PTP && > + (pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x1) || > + (pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CNF10K_A_PTP && > + (pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x0) || > + (pdev->subsystem_device == PCI_SUBSYS_DEVID_CNF10K_A_PTP && > + (pdev->revision & 0x0F) == 0x1)) why are you not using cn10k_ptp_errata() here? > + return false; > + > + return true; > } > -static int otx2_ptp_adjtime(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp_info, s64 delta) > +static int otx2_ptp_tc_adjtime(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp_info, s64 delta) > { > struct otx2_ptp *ptp = container_of(ptp_info, struct otx2_ptp, > ptp_info); > struct otx2_nic *pfvf = ptp->nic; > > + if (!ptp->nic) > + return -ENODEV; Is this check related to the rest of the patch? > mutex_lock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); > timecounter_adjtime(&ptp->time_counter, delta); > mutex_unlock(&pfvf->mbox.lock); -- pw-bot: cr