From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ixgbe: add support for extended PHC gettime
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181031144935.GR31668@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181031144003.qs235wjmiuwaprps@localhost>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:40:03AM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:31:09PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > I think there could be a flag in ptp_system_timestamp, or a parameter
> > of gettimex64(), which would enable/disable reading of the system
> > clock.
>
> I'm not a fan of functions that change their behavior based on flags
> in their input parameters.
How about separating the PHC timestamp from the ptp_system_timestamp
structure and use NULL to indicate we don't want to read the system
clock? A gettimex64(ptp, ts, NULL) call would be equal to
gettime64(ptp, ts).
struct ptp_system_timestamp {
struct timespec64 pre_ts;
struct timespec64 post_ts;
};
int (*gettimex64)(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct timespec64 *ts,
struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts);
--
Miroslav Lichvar
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org"
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] ixgbe: add support for extended PHC gettime
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181031144935.GR31668@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181031144003.qs235wjmiuwaprps@localhost>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:40:03AM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:31:09PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > I think there could be a flag in ptp_system_timestamp, or a parameter
> > of gettimex64(), which would enable/disable reading of the system
> > clock.
>
> I'm not a fan of functions that change their behavior based on flags
> in their input parameters.
How about separating the PHC timestamp from the ptp_system_timestamp
structure and use NULL to indicate we don't want to read the system
clock? A gettimex64(ptp, ts, NULL) call would be equal to
gettime64(ptp, ts).
struct ptp_system_timestamp {
struct timespec64 pre_ts;
struct timespec64 post_ts;
};
int (*gettimex64)(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct timespec64 *ts,
struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts);
--
Miroslav Lichvar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-31 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-26 16:27 [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 0/4] More accurate PHC<->system clock synchronization Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 1/4] ptp: add PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED ioctl Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 22:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2018-10-26 22:16 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2018-10-29 12:52 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-29 12:52 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-31 2:23 ` Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 2:23 ` Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 3:01 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 3:01 ` Richard Cochran
2018-10-26 16:27 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 2/4] e1000e: add support for extended PHC gettime Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 3/4] igb: " Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-31 2:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 2:29 ` Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 9:39 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-31 9:39 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-31 16:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-31 16:56 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-26 16:27 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 4/4] ixgbe: " Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:27 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-26 16:54 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-26 16:54 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-29 13:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-29 13:31 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-29 16:02 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-29 16:02 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-31 14:40 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 14:40 ` Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 14:49 ` Miroslav Lichvar [this message]
2018-10-31 14:49 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-31 21:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 21:16 ` Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 22:08 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-31 22:08 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-31 16:55 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-31 16:55 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-26 16:40 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 0/4] More accurate PHC<->system clock synchronization Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-26 16:40 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-26 16:51 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-26 16:51 ` Keller, Jacob E
2018-10-31 2:25 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2018-10-31 2:25 ` Richard Cochran
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=20181031144935.GR31668@localhost \
--to=mlichvar@redhat.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.