From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: PHC device sharing between PCI functions Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 15:34:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1372948466.1853.1.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> References: <1372697768.2083.21.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> <20130702142420.GC14630@netboy> <1372778262.1919.12.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> <20130703183035.GA4446@netboy> <1372881153.1919.49.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> <20130704053605.GC4457@netboy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-net-drivers , netdev , Laurence Evans To: Richard Cochran Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:18607 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756715Ab3GDOea (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:34:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130704053605.GC4457@netboy> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 07:36 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 08:52:33PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > So you think each function should have its own clock device, but it's > > only writable on one? I think that would work, but I thought it would > > be undesirable to have multiple aliases for the same physical clock. > > The aliases would not bother me, as long as the ethtool interface-to-phc > association works properly. Well what would be 'properly' in this case? > Of course, if there is a way to suppress > the aliases in the non-VM case, that would be ideal. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.