[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190531160909.jh43saqvichukv7p@localhost>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 09:09:09 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] PTP support for the SJA1105 DSA driver
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 06:23:34PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> You mean to queue it and subvert DSA's own RX timestamping callback?
No, use the callback.
> Why would I do that? Just so as not to introduce my .can_timestamp
> callback?
Right, the .can_timestamp is unneeded, AFAICT.
> > Now I'm starting to understand your series. I think it can be done in
> > simpler way...
> >
> > sja1105_rcv_meta_state_machine - can and should be at the driver level
> > and not at the port level.
> >
>
> Can: yes. Should: why?
To keep it simple and robust.
> One important aspect makes this need be a little bit more complicated:
> reconstructing these RX timestamps.
> You see, there is a mutex on the SPI bus, so in practice I do need the
> sja1105_port_rxtstamp_work for exactly this purpose - to read the
> timestamping clock over SPI.
Sure. But you schedule the work after a META frame. And no busy
waiting is needed.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists