[PATCH v9 net-next 12/12] net: remove phy_has_hwtstamp() -> phy_mii_ioctl() decision from converted drivers

[Köry Maincent]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:12:14 +0200
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent at bootlin.com> wrote:

> On Tue,  1 Aug 2023 17:28:24 +0300
> Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com> wrote:
> 
> > It is desirable that the new .ndo_hwtstamp_set() API gives more
> > uniformity, less overhead and future flexibility w.r.t. the PHY
> > timestamping behavior.
> > 
> > Currently there are some drivers which allow PHY timestamping through
> > the procedure mentioned in Documentation/networking/timestamping.rst.
> > They don't do anything locally if phy_has_hwtstamp() is set, except for
> > lan966x which installs PTP packet traps.
> > 
> > Centralize that behavior in a new dev_set_hwtstamp_phylib() code
> > function, which calls either phy_mii_ioctl() for the phylib PHY,
> > or .ndo_hwtstamp_set() of the netdev, based on a single policy
> > (currently simplistic: phy_has_hwtstamp()).
> > 
> > Any driver converted to .ndo_hwtstamp_set() will automatically opt into
> > the centralized phylib timestamping policy. Unconverted drivers still
> > get to choose whether they let the PHY handle timestamping or not.
> > 
> > Netdev drivers with integrated PHY drivers that don't use phylib
> > presumably don't set dev->phydev, and those will always see
> > HWTSTAMP_SOURCE_NETDEV requests even when converted. The timestamping
> > policy will remain 100% up to them.  
> 
> > +static int dev_set_hwtstamp_phylib(struct net_device *dev,
> > +				   struct kernel_hwtstamp_config *cfg,
> > +				   struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > +{  
> ...
> 
> > +	if (phy_ts) {
> > +		err = phy_hwtstamp_set(dev->phydev, cfg, extack);
> > +		if (err) {
> > +			if (changed)
> > +				ops->ndo_hwtstamp_set(dev, &old_cfg, NULL);
> > +			return err;
> > +		}
> > +	}  
> 
> In this case the copy_from_user function will be call 2 times, one in
> dev_set_hwtstamp and one in the mii_ts.hwtstamp callback of the PHY driver.
> Should we create also a copied_from_user flag? Other idea?

oops sorry for the noise the issue I face seems elsewhere.
If I understand it well, two call of copy_from_user consecutive will behave the
same.