Re: [PATCH net] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpts: fix support for PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST2 ioctl

[Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>]

On 10/21/2026 8:52 PM, James Clark wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 03:37:13 +0000, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote:
>> Before this patch, supported_extts_flags was 0 for am65-cpts. A v1 request
>> with PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE | PTP_FALLING_EDGE, or with both edges set, was
>> accepted and reached am65_cpts_extts_enable(), which ignores the flags.
>>
>> Now the mask has PTP_STRICT_FLAGS but not PTP_FALLING_EDGE, so those same
>> v1 requests return -EOPNOTSUPP before ops->enable() is ever called.
> [...]
>> However, the commit message says:
>>
>>     Only the PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST ioctl still works.
>>
>> This suggests v1 behaviour does not change. The patch has a Fixes: tag and
>> is likely to go to stable. Could the commit message say that v1 requests
>> carrying PTP_FALLING_EDGE are now rejected as well?
> 
> The sentence that Sashiko quotes is part of the paragraph describing the
> state before this patch, so it has no such implication.
> 
> With this patch, PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST rejects a request for PTP_FALLING_EDGE
> instead of accepting it and reporting rising edges. This is part of the
> purpose of 7c571ac57d9d. The equivalent bcm-phy-ptp fix, 3200fdd4021d
> ("broadcom: fix support for PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST2 ioctl"), made the same
> change without mentioning it.
> 
> I don't plan to do a v2 for this.

Yep, I agree with this assessment.

Acked-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>