From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr Subject: Re: SO_TIMESTAMPING fix and design decisions Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:48:13 -0700 Message-ID: <1253468893.2654.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090919192549.0735c93a@pundit> <1253398161.14869.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090920095242.5cd42f1a@pundit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Christopher Zimmermann Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:2989 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755079AbZITRsG (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:48:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090920095242.5cd42f1a@pundit> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 00:52 -0700, Christopher Zimmermann wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:09:21 -0700 > Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote: > > > > hardware timestamps only work for the Intel igb driver. I have > > > access to two test machines with NICs supported by this driver. > > > > Intel's 82599, supported by ixgbe, also has the same IEEE 1588 > > timestamping support in hardware. We haven't implemented the support > > yet in ixgbe, but the hardware is there and does work. If you were > > curious of the interface, the datasheet for the hardware is available on > > our SourceForge site (e1000.sf.net). > > hi! thanks for the reply. > > I already got the documentation for the 82576 cards I have access to. I > won't be able to afford another pair. > > What do you think about my idea to expose the relevant registers to > userspace? I believe it would not be too difficult for userspace to > configure the timestamps this way and would allow way more flexibility. > Of course I would #DEFINE the constants used to set the registers. The patch seems reasonable, but I haven't played with the igb timestamping very much. However, what impact will this have on the existing ptpd userspace daemon? -PJ