From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:31:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150825073111.GB2016@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B79D786B7111A34A8CF09F833429C493A90AD3C6@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:16:51PM +0000, Hall, Christopher S wrote:
>
> This means: remove code changes from the PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl and call getsynctime64() from a new ioctl PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE. Right?
Yes.
> And use the same type (struct ptp_sys_offset) for the new ioctl? Or should a new simplified struct be used? Such as:
>
> struct precise_ptp_sys_offset {
> struct ptp_clock_time device;
> struct ptp_clock_time system;
> };
I don't have a strong preference either way. I would not mind reusing
the existing struct.
> Does it make sense to keep the "cross-timestamp" capabilities flag as-is?
Yes, indeed.
Thanks,
Richard
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: "Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"john.stultz@linaro.org" <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org"
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:31:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150825073111.GB2016@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B79D786B7111A34A8CF09F833429C493A90AD3C6@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:16:51PM +0000, Hall, Christopher S wrote:
>
> This means: remove code changes from the PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl and call getsynctime64() from a new ioctl PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE. Right?
Yes.
> And use the same type (struct ptp_sys_offset) for the new ioctl? Or should a new simplified struct be used? Such as:
>
> struct precise_ptp_sys_offset {
> struct ptp_clock_time device;
> struct ptp_clock_time system;
> };
I don't have a strong preference either way. I would not mind reusing
the existing struct.
> Does it make sense to keep the "cross-timestamp" capabilities flag as-is?
Yes, indeed.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-25 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-21 18:52 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 0/4] Patchset enabling hardware based cross-timestamps for next gen Intel platforms Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-21 18:52 ` Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-21 18:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 1/4] Add correlated clocksource deriving system time from an auxiliary clocksource Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-21 18:52 ` Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-22 20:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-22 20:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-03 23:20 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Hall, Christopher S
2015-09-03 23:20 ` Hall, Christopher S
2015-09-04 8:11 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2015-09-04 8:11 ` Richard Cochran
2015-09-04 14:28 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-04 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-04 21:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Hall, Christopher S
2015-09-04 21:12 ` Hall, Christopher S
2015-09-04 13:02 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-04 13:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-04 15:10 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-04 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-04 15:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2015-09-04 15:17 ` Richard Cochran
2015-09-04 15:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-04 15:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-04 16:35 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-04 21:01 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Hall, Christopher S
2015-09-04 21:01 ` Hall, Christopher S
2015-09-05 8:46 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-05 8:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-05 10:04 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Ingo Molnar
2015-09-05 10:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-04 15:32 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2015-09-04 15:32 ` Richard Cochran
2015-09-04 21:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Stultz
2015-09-04 21:50 ` John Stultz
2015-08-21 18:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 2/4] Added ART correlated clocksource and ART CPU feature Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-21 18:52 ` Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-22 20:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-22 20:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-21 18:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-21 18:52 ` Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-22 20:33 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-22 20:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-22 21:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2015-08-22 21:17 ` Richard Cochran
2015-08-23 8:15 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-23 8:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-23 11:25 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2015-08-23 11:25 ` Richard Cochran
2015-08-24 20:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Hall, Christopher S
2015-08-24 20:16 ` Hall, Christopher S
2015-08-25 7:31 ` Richard Cochran [this message]
2015-08-25 7:31 ` Richard Cochran
2015-08-21 18:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 4/4] Enabling hardware supported PTP system/device crosstimestamping Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-21 18:52 ` Christopher S. Hall
2015-08-22 20:46 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-22 20:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150825073111.GB2016@localhost.localdomain \
--to=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.