Re: [PATCH] ice/ptp: fix crosstimestamp reporting

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 10:33:31PM +0200, Markus Blöchl wrote:
> From: Anton Nadezhdin <anton.nadezhdin@intel.com>
> 
> commit a5a441ae283d upstream.
> 
> Set use_nsecs=true as timestamp is reported in ns. Lack of this result
> in smaller timestamp error window which cause error during phc2sys
> execution on E825 NICs:
> phc2sys[1768.256]: ioctl PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE: Invalid argument
> 
> This problem was introduced in the cited commit which omitted setting
> use_nsecs to true when converting the ice driver to use
> convert_base_to_cs().
> 
> Testing hints (ethX is PF netdev):
> phc2sys -s ethX -c CLOCK_REALTIME  -O 37 -m
> phc2sys[1769.256]: CLOCK_REALTIME phc offset -5 s0 freq      -0 delay    0
> 
> Fixes: d4bea547ebb57 ("ice/ptp: Remove convert_art_to_tsc()")
> Signed-off-by: Anton Nadezhdin <anton.nadezhdin@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <aleksandr.loktionov@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Rinitha S <sx.rinitha@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Blöchl <markus@blochl.de>
> ---
> Hi Greg,
> 
> please consider this backport for linux-6.12.y
> 
> It fixes a regression from the series around
> d4bea547ebb57 ("ice/ptp: Remove convert_art_to_tsc()")
> which affected multiple drivers and occasionally
> caused phc2sys to fail on ioctl(fd, PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE, ...).
> 
> This was the initial fix for ice but apparently tagging it
> for stable was forgotten during submission.
> 
> The hunk was moved around slightly in the upstream commit 
> 92456e795ac6 ("ice: Add unified ice_capture_crosststamp")
> from ice_ptp_get_syncdevicetime() into another helper function
> ice_capture_crosststamp() so its indentation and context have changed.
> I adapted it to apply cleanly.
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

This is already in the 6.12.42 release, so we don't need to apply it
again, right?

thanks,
greg k-h