From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 1/2] igb: add PTP Hardware Clock code
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:33:49 +0100
Message-ID: <20120110093349.GA5480@cherladcori01>
References: <cover.1325964581.git.richardcochran@gmail.com>
 <06a2d33bed05d5c17c03fca6f0fcc2fe3f6870f4.1325964581.git.richardcochran@gmail.com>
 <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5801E86F@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20120110084450.GA5356@cherladcori01>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@intel.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:52328 "EHLO
	mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754424Ab2AJJeD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:34:03 -0500
Received: by wgbdr10 with SMTP id dr10so2809275wgb.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120110084450.GA5356@cherladcori01>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 09:44:50AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:42:20PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> 
> > Is there a reason for not using the timecounter structure from the
> > kernel? It is a layer beneath the timecompare code which is meant to
> > handle this condition. As far as I can tell this issue is solved in
> > the timecounter code. If it is not, then that should be a bug in the
> > timecounter cyclecounter code. I don't know if this issue occurs in
> > the timecounter structure because it handles the ns conversion
> > differently.
> 
> My only reason is that I am not sure that the timecounter code really
> does what we need.  It might well work.  Consider, though, that the
> 82580 register does not overflow in the usual way. The upper 24 bits
> are always zero.
> 
> What I wrote does the right thing, I think.  However, duplicated
> effort is always bad, so can you show me how to change it?

I took a brief look, and I think the timecounter idea might work.
Later this week I'll try it out if I can.

Thanks,
Richard