From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 28/29] fm10k: Add support for ptp to hw specific
 files
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:19:26 +0200
Message-ID: <20140919151926.GA542@netboy>
References: <20140918223242.10373.27403.stgit@ahduyck-bv4.jf.intel.com>
 <20140918224023.10373.11456.stgit@ahduyck-bv4.jf.intel.com>
 <20140919073820.GA5954@netboy>
 <541C3F88.2090004@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, nhorman@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, matthew.vick@intel.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, sassmann@redhat.com
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:38240 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755372AbaISPTc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:19:32 -0400
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y10so468936wgg.25
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <541C3F88.2090004@intel.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:36:56AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 09/19/2014 12:38 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:40:30PM -0400, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > 
> >> +static s32 fm10k_adjust_systime_pf(struct fm10k_hw *hw, s32 ppb)
> >> +{
> >> +	u64 systime_adjust;
> >> +
> >> +	/* if sw_addr is not set we don't have switch register access */
> >> +	if (!hw->sw_addr)
> >> +		return ppb ? FM10K_ERR_PARAM : 0;
> >> +
> >> +	/* we must convert the value from parts per billion to parts per
> >> +	 * 2^48 cycles.  In addition we can only use the upper 30 bits of
> >> +	 * the value when making the change so that restricts us futher.
> >> +	 * The math for this is equivilent to ABS(pps) * 2^40 / 10 ^ 9,

...

> 2.  The value is in 2 ^ 48 units, and the OS wants to give us a value in
> parts per billion, not parts per 256 * 2 ^ 40.  So in order to simplify
> things I dropped the lower 8 bits and only update

So what does the comment in the code about "upper 30 bits" mean?

Thanks,
Richard