[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161209085037.GA16009@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:50:37 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
Wingman Kwok <w-kwok2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: add support of cpts
HW_TS_PUSH
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> huh. Seems this is not really good idea, because MISC Irq will be
> triggered for *any* CPTS event and there is no way to enable it just for
> HW_TS_PUSH.
So what? That is not a problem.
> So, this doesn't work will with current code for RX/TX timestamping
> (which uses polling mode).
Why doesn't it work?
> + runtime overhead in net RX/TX caused by
> triggering more interrupts.
This is not relevant. Without HW_TS_PUSH, there is no need for
enabling the interrupt simply because we don't need it. Now, with
HW_TS_PUSH, we do need it.
> May be, overflow check/polling timeout can be made configurable (module parameter).
No, it should just work without any user space fiddling.
I getting a bit tired of your half-baked implementations of the
ancillary clock functions. Either do it right, or just leave it
unsupported.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists