From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk (pandora.armlinux.org.uk [78.32.30.218]) (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 2C11E1BD014 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=78.32.30.218 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735895322; cv=none; b=gK9IyNk5n1u+PQWaz/d5NEzhGd7TdHkRicM7jPSWROVGLGFxEzEsEWdbyCxcZWQWGyO5+0Yp7qoGFN3+RxKKpTeBrmEpw8yuoPnagr2tiHjfDrZ++XjtO2NcvPfhh14zDf2ZwK3F81ZWaOaBtjbRvEk11fn4YTrAfYYZFcO85JA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735895322; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EubadRbocUH9VnJTgCdSDYbqda0BVP2Vlcvy3+nRuK4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pjUSoEcfCiwdshoudrUnjbj9ramobIFRRHRl3l8LL46CokTwb9KKkIb8rXoLaL6fXBqcY6M8/7YII7jet/Jf1GM9EwQbRAhEYnxFK2hmp5omYmuKE+cZF1PBOos2/OdC+8qATo4Ov4rGpQJaDP+UABgJaYnUW9p+dge31Y0doM0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=armlinux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=armlinux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b=KcY/IIf6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=78.32.30.218 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=armlinux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=armlinux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b="KcY/IIf6" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armlinux.org.uk; s=pandora-2019; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Wsyh+5boNyaBATGIrUPzvAmr0/G9SuJcgFITeVyp4dg=; b=KcY/IIf6eSj2Du/8485QS1wYql InvwZPboDvWbPctqlvTcNt3I59XuOhfs3oR1vycblsPUtLGHSRVF1hcV9YmOYl1Z5bZpOwX9ylvPv 0rfC4BBc7iqt1/EijPIUDpgpAWxqpMYWvAdMuQ8jO9Qq4s0PDMc1Pzfc9bFcCBef2s6CxDoZr3r1x 8fosqteYtRsC3CffwK3SnzOH0WhxY9JsfYGljIqeoZBeoQ5yb68U5Qp0/wVEpEKVb/wvXVM3xqf1F dnh5qUiJ3fNBdTQoQpyOBv8U4Ot1ClB9GPh1rlLF9fecWpyzqvpAo5VSGtcc/e2nn8C1OZk1yyO11 5c6EWqpg==; Received: from shell.armlinux.org.uk ([fd8f:7570:feb6:1:5054:ff:fe00:4ec]:32782) by pandora.armlinux.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tTdfN-0002sj-1F; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 09:08:25 +0000 Received: from linux by shell.armlinux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tTdfK-0001At-1M; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 09:08:22 +0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:08:22 +0000 From: "Russell King (Oracle)" To: Richard Cochran Cc: Andrew Lunn , Heiner Kallweit , Marcin Wojtas , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: mvpp2: tai: warn once if we fail to update our timestamp Message-ID: References: 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: Russell King (Oracle) On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 12:43:56AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 04:26:04PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > If we fail to read the clock, that will be because the hardware didn't > > respond to our request to read it, which means the hardware broke in > > some way. We could make mvpp22_tai_tstamp() fail and not provide > > timestamps until we have successfully read the HW clock, but we would > > still want to print a warning to explain why HW timestamps vanish. > > Sure, keep the warning, but also block time stamp delivery. > > > This is to catch a spurious failure that may only affects an occasoinal > > attempt to read the HW PTP time. Currently, we would never know, > > because the kernel is currently completely silent if that were to ever > > happen. > > Is the failure spurious, or is the hardware broken and won't recover? I have absolutely no idea. I've never seen it happen. That's why I think going further than I have (and as you are suggesting) is totally overkill. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!