Hi Richard,

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:16 PM
To: Y.b. Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; David S . Miller
[off-list ref]; Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref];
Claudiu Manoil [off-list ref]; Andrew Lunn [off-list ref];
Vivien Didelot [off-list ref]; Florian Fainelli
[off-list ref]; Alexandre Belloni [off-list ref];
Microchip Linux Driver Support [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ptp_ocelot: support 4 programmable pins

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:37:26PM +0800, Yangbo Lu wrote:

quoted

Support 4 programmable pins for only one function periodic
signal for now.

For now?

Yes. The pin on Ocelot/Felix supports both PTP_PF_PEROUT and PTP_PF_EXTTS functions.
But the PTP_PF_EXTTS function should be implemented separately in Ocelot and Felix since hardware interrupt implementation is different on them.
I am responsible for Felix. However I am facing some issue on PTP_PF_EXTTS function on hardware. It may take a long time to discuss internally.

Thanks.

quoted

+static int ocelot_ptp_verify(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, unsigned int pin,
+			     enum ptp_pin_function func, unsigned int chan)
+{
+	switch (func) {
+	case PTP_PF_NONE:
+	case PTP_PF_PEROUT:
+		break;

If the functions cannot be changed, then supporting the
PTP_PIN_SETFUNC ioctl does not make sense!

Did you mean the dead lock issue? Or you thought the pin supported only PTP_PF_PEROUT function in hardware?

quoted

+	case PTP_PF_EXTTS:
+	case PTP_PF_PHYSYNC:
+		return -1;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}

Thanks,
Richard