On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:49:14AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> But we do reset whole cpsw :( and that's required to support PM use cases as
> suspend/resume.
The code is resetting the clock unconditionally on ifup/down. That
sucks. If you reset the clock *only* after resume, that would be
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:49:14AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> But we do reset whole cpsw :( and that's required to support PM use cases as
> suspend/resume.
The code is resetting the clock unconditionally on ifup/down. That
sucks. If you reset the clock *only* after resume, that would be
Hi Richard,
On 12/06/2016 11:18 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:45:55AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 12/06/2016 07:40 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> [ BTW, resetting the timecounter here makes no sense either. Why
>>> reset the clock just because the interface
Hi Richard,
On 12/06/2016 11:18 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:45:55AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 12/06/2016 07:40 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> [ BTW, resetting the timecounter here makes no sense either. Why
>>> reset the clock just because the interface
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:45:55AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 07:40 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > [ BTW, resetting the timecounter here makes no sense either. Why
> > reset the clock just because the interface goes down? ]
> >
>
> Huh. This is how it works now (even
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:45:55AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 07:40 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > [ BTW, resetting the timecounter here makes no sense either. Why
> > reset the clock just because the interface goes down? ]
> >
>
> Huh. This is how it works now (even
On 12/06/2016 07:40 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:21PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> @@ -372,34 +354,27 @@ void cpts_tx_timestamp(struct cpts *cpts, struct
>> sk_buff *skb)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpts_tx_timestamp);
>>
>> -int cpts_register(struct device
On 12/06/2016 07:40 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:21PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> @@ -372,34 +354,27 @@ void cpts_tx_timestamp(struct cpts *cpts, struct
>> sk_buff *skb)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpts_tx_timestamp);
>>
>> -int cpts_register(struct device
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:21PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> @@ -372,34 +354,27 @@ void cpts_tx_timestamp(struct cpts *cpts, struct
> sk_buff *skb)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpts_tx_timestamp);
>
> -int cpts_register(struct device *dev, struct cpts *cpts,
> - u32 mult, u32
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:21PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> @@ -372,34 +354,27 @@ void cpts_tx_timestamp(struct cpts *cpts, struct
> sk_buff *skb)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpts_tx_timestamp);
>
> -int cpts_register(struct device *dev, struct cpts *cpts,
> - u32 mult, u32
The current implementation CPTS initialization and deinitialization
(represented by cpts_register/unregister()) does too many static
initialization from .ndo_open(), which is reasonable to do once at probe
time instead, and also require caller to allocate memory for struct cpts,
which is internal
The current implementation CPTS initialization and deinitialization
(represented by cpts_register/unregister()) does too many static
initialization from .ndo_open(), which is reasonable to do once at probe
time instead, and also require caller to allocate memory for struct cpts,
which is internal
12 matches
Mail list logo
