Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/9] phy: add hwtstamp_get callback to phy drivers

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 05:05:18PM +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 13/11/2025 16:57, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 04:48:00PM +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> > > If the above is correct, then yes, there is no reason to implement
> > > SIOCGHWTSTAMP, and even more, SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be technically removed
> > > as a dead code.
> > 
> > I think you're missing the clarification in this sentence "... to
> > implement SIOCGHWTSTAMP in phy_mii_ioctl(), and even more,
> > SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be removed from this function as dead code.""
> 
> Ok, it's better to "there is no reason to have SIOCGHWTSTAMP chunk,
> provided in patch 2 of this series"
> 
> Or are you asking for the clarification of SIOCSHWTSTAMP removal?
> I don't plan to remove it, at least not in this series. I just wanted
> to mention that there will be no way to reach SIOCSHWTSTAMP case in
> phy_mii_ioctl() from user-space ABI. Does it make sense?

I'm not asking. I'm trying to work out what you're trying to say, and
suggesting a clarification to your last paragraph that would clarify
what I thought you mean. Now I'm even more confused about what you're
proposing.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!