[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231122165955.tujcadked5bgqjet@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:59:55 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Radu Pirea <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 15/16] net: ethtool: ts: Let the active time
stamping layer be selectable
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 08:54:59AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:36:18 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > @Jakub, for your long-term "MAC timestamps for PTP, DMA for everything else".
> > How do you see this? I guess we need some sort of priority function in
> > the UAPI between hwtstamp providers.
> >
> > And even with that, I think the enums that we currently have for filters
> > are not specific enough. The most we could expose is:
> >
> > MAC provider DMA provider
> >
> > hwtstamp_rx_filters HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL
> > tx_type HWTSTAMP_TX_ON HWTSTAMP_TX_ON
> >
> > but it isn't clear: for PTP, does the DMA provider give you an RX
> > timestamp too?
>
> If we phrase it as "precise / approximate" rather than "MAC / DMA" - it
> seems fairly intuitive to give the best timestamp available for a given
> packet, no?
I wouldn't be so sure. The alternative interpretation "for PTP, give me
timestamps from both sources" also sounds reasonable for the distant
future where that will be possible (with proper cmsg identification).
But I don't see how to distinguish the two - the filters, expressed in
these terms, would be the same.
> > What about a TX timestamp?
>
> I was thinking - socket flag to make packets for a given socket request
> precise timestamps.
So the ptp4l source code would have to be modified to still work with
the same precision as before? I'm not seeing this through.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists