From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:31:11 +0200
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver
 cross-timestamp to PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl
In-Reply-To: <B79D786B7111A34A8CF09F833429C493A90AD3C6@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1440183128-1384-1-git-send-email-christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
 <1440183128-1384-4-git-send-email-christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508222226540.3873@nanos>
 <20150822211718.GA8561@netboy>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508231011360.3873@nanos>
 <20150823112556.GA8569@localhost.localdomain>
 <B79D786B7111A34A8CF09F833429C493A90AD3C6@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <20150825073111.GB2016@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
List-ID: <intel-wired-lan.osuosl.org>

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