[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120322064107.GB2182@netboy.at.omicron.at>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:41:07 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of
the timecompare method
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:50:34PM -0400, chetan loke wrote:
>
> Richard - Intent is to make the readers(get_time) wait (or return last
> read value if the seq_counter tripped because you know that this value
> was recent) and let the tx/rx path continue. I haven't looked in more
> details but as Jake mentioned you will also need to change the way you
> read the values(by not using timecounter_read in get_time).
I don't get what you guys are saying. How can you avoid the spin lock
around the two time register reads? How about a patch or some pseudo
code?
Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists