[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171008120737.32k3qf2omg5p2wgz@localhost>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:07:39 -0400
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@...com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
Erik Hons <erik.hons@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 2/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: expose switch time
as a PTP hardware clock
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 03:17:02PM +0000, Brandon Streiff wrote:
>
> Although now that I'm looking it over again, I'm also not certain of
> the need. Even if we're called more frequently than we expect, that
> doesn't seem to be harmful with regard to timekeeping. Hmm.
Just keep it simple and drop the extra logic. It doesn't hurt to
over-sample the clock. Here is what I did:
/* Covers both a 100 or a 125 MHz input clock. */
#define MV88E635X_OVERFLOW_PERIOD (HZ * 16)
static void mv88e635x_overflow_check(struct work_struct *ws)
{
struct timespec64 ts;
struct mv88e6xxx_chip *ps =
container_of(ws, struct mv88e6xxx_chip, oflow_work.work);
mv88e635x_ptp_gettime(&ps->ptp_info, &ts);
pr_debug("mv88e635x overflow check at %lld.%09lu\n",
ts.tv_sec, ts.tv_nsec);
schedule_delayed_work(&ps->oflow_work, MV88E635X_OVERFLOW_PERIOD);
}
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists