[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1372954878.1853.6.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:21:18 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: linux-net-drivers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Laurence Evans <levans@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: PHC device sharing between PCI functions
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 17:53 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 03:34:26PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 07:36 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > >
> > > The aliases would not bother me, as long as the ethtool interface-to-phc
> > > association works properly.
> >
> > Well what would be 'properly' in this case?
>
> If a PCIe card provides one interface eth0 and four PHC devcies
> /dev/ptp0-3, then doing 'ethtool -T eth0' should show PHC index 0.
But that is the opposite of what we're talking about. Say the card has,
16 functions resulting in net devices eth0-eth15, each of which can
access the same physical clock. You said it's OK to have read-only
aliases for a clock, so then there might be a writable /dev/ptp0 and
read-only /dev/ptp1-ptp15. What is the proper association between net
devices and clock devices?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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