[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231123160056.070f3311@kmaincent-XPS-13-7390>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:00:56 +0100
From: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....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, 22 Nov 2023 10:01:42 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:55:17 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > Well, ethtool has been the catch all for a lot of random things
> > > for the longest time. The question is whether we want to extend
> > > ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO or add a third API somewhere else. And if we
> > > do - do we also duplicate the functionality of ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO
> > > (i.e. getting capabilities)?
> > >
> > > My vote is that keeping it in ethtool is less bad than 3rd API.
> >
> > With SIOCSHWTSTAMP also implemented by CAN (and presumably also by
> > wireless in the future), I do wonder whether ethtool is the right place
> > for the netlink conversion.
>
> ethtool currently provides the only way we have to configure ring
> length, ring count, RSS, UDP tunnels etc.
>
> It's a matter of taste, IMO ethtool is a bit of a lost cause already
> and keeping things together (ethtool already has TS_INFO) is cleaner
> than spreading them around.
>
> > I wouldn't suggest duplicating ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO towards the netdev
> > netlink family.
>
> FTR so far the netdev family is all about SW configuration. We should
> probably keep it that way, so it doesn't become ginormous. It's easy
> enough to create a new family, if needed.
So, do we have a consensus? Vlad, do you agree on putting all under ethtool?
ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO will be in charge of replacing the SIOCGHWSTAMP
implementation. Need to add ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_PHC_INDEX
ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_QUALIFIER to the request.
ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO will list all the hwtstamp provider (aka "{phc_index,
qualifier}") through the dumpit callback. I will add a filter to be able to
list only the hwtstamp provider of one netdev.
ETHTOOL_SET_TS_INFO will be in charge of replacing the SIOCSHWSTAMP
implementation.
Is that ok for you?
Regards,
--
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists