From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF78EA0521; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:41:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C2CCB9F; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:41:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1AACB93 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:41:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175E8866; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:41:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Nov 2020 10:41:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= fzOr4xjGdzFubeLLHvC2oyKh+pyIsjjNjrQtT4bkPS4=; b=OXaPtc7WdJwnIx3b qFnziHhZi/iEAIteTNBaLX1dMxalgTpUk7f9SD2DEFEZl4VQgpa/qRiH586Zn4CH Y38NqS3HW8C5AqtR21Md0fC/kaAVrQWgzsROMG3zT32jOr+70N4/Rjr0blEG12if ydmlvAIOvV3LBBNUBzJ3SlYEOLjfwp3A3y+6E4fcS6hRRNhQu3UlzXh3L1e5Ww/M uBC4RjdcGs+DCyWmoPEZEDpca1E7fyMIbyLUS1fQL/TWRTKdXQcJ2jTX6tkKpfPy oM0WvybFMmIH1WFhcehZmD5qVW6S4Hd8KB9RxvdMuyS10tQiTV2QdVC46nPNdn9c jssVBw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=fzOr4xjGdzFubeLLHvC2oyKh+pyIsjjNjrQtT4bkP S4=; b=kYJgj102pJqvzJWfRewwysFUOzR9TGKe4Rb4OYg8BNsPYal+25bVAXAS2 6PQeNPEp1T0a0h+DdgMIplK2F3DWEuHMQr7C3c7WGBHwIbCCGl8ru7mCZ0pPv6FK etErD6GG6gjc21In996a5ZI232SixZ0kEuisMm+ZL+tF0kZaNyHDWdW1QBYbHsG4 7HxNxrpFu/upjddgrwj9Ovi+mcGNRZP0vv034mxvA5Kc8ki4x+pymfuNunlZP1xa Ge6vfqmlq9ZR0YRoVZ/ztXy9kvpHrFz53kHG6A8EYirLexvQ98EvTv8J5AkHxDip PrZ8T/p2K9d2kfXOWyZ5CLiqz3xcw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddtfedgjeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4E1D53064686; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Harman Kalra Cc: Jerin Jacob , Nithin Dabilpuram , Kiran Kumar K , david.marchand@redhat.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 16:41:14 +0100 Message-ID: <89135471.sFktW74q6F@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20201103152040.17654-1-hkalra@marvell.com> References: <20201103152040.17654-1-hkalra@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/octeontx2: fix dynamic registration for timestamp X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 03/11/2020 16:20, Harman Kalra: > Registration of timestamp field should be done once and Why? Next registrations does nothing, it is not a problem. > only when ptp kernel changes are successful. Rx timestamp can be useful without PTP. > --- a/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c > +++ b/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c > @@ -2225,16 +2225,6 @@ otx2_nix_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) > if (otx2_ethdev_is_ptp_en(dev) && otx2_dev_is_vf(dev)) > otx2_nix_ptp_enable_vf(eth_dev); NIX_RX_OFFLOAD_TSTAMP_F is set in above function. Is it useless? Or should we register timestamp below? > - if (dev->rx_offload_flags & NIX_RX_OFFLOAD_TSTAMP_F) { > - rc = rte_mbuf_dyn_rx_timestamp_register( > - &dev->tstamp.tstamp_dynfield_offset, > - &dev->tstamp.rx_tstamp_dynflag); > - if (rc != 0) { > - otx2_err("Failed to register Rx timestamp field/flag"); > - return -rte_errno; > - } > - }