[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h87isci5.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:35:14 +0300
From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Christopher S . Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] PTP: add support for Intel's TGPIO controller
Hi,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:20:33AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> TGPIO is a new IP which allows for time synchronization between systems
>> without any other means of synchronization such as PTP or NTP. The
>> driver is implemented as part of the PTP framework since its features
>> covered most of what this controller can do.
>
> Hi Felipe
>
> Given the name TGPIO, can it also be used for plain old boring GPIO?
not really, no. This is a misnomer, IMHO :-) We can only assert output
pulses at specified intervals or capture a timestamp of an external
signal.
> Does there need to be some sort of mux between GPIO and TGPIO? And an
> interface into the generic GPIO core?
no
> Also, is this always embedded into a SoC? Or could it actually be in a
> discrete NIC?
Technically, this could be done as a discrete, but it isn't. In any
case, why does that matter? From a linux-point of view, we have a device
driver either way.
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists