[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201101235559.wcdns4kmy6ri7kmz@skbuf>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 01:55:59 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@...enta.de>,
Paul Barker <pbarker@...sulko.com>,
Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@...rochip.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
Tristram Ha <Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 7/9] net: dsa: microchip: ksz9477: add
hardware time stamping support
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:41:49AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> In principle I don't see any reason why this switch would not be able
> to operate as a one-step peer delay BC.
What I meant to say was "one-step E2E BC", since I was talking about
having to receive both Sync and Delay_Req at the same time, of course.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists