[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150825073111.GB2016@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:31:11 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: "Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to
PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:16:51PM +0000, Hall, Christopher S wrote:
>
> This means: remove code changes from the PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl and call getsynctime64() from a new ioctl PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE. Right?
Yes.
> And use the same type (struct ptp_sys_offset) for the new ioctl? Or should a new simplified struct be used? Such as:
>
> struct precise_ptp_sys_offset {
> struct ptp_clock_time device;
> struct ptp_clock_time system;
> };
I don't have a strong preference either way. I would not mind reusing
the existing struct.
> Does it make sense to keep the "cross-timestamp" capabilities flag as-is?
Yes, indeed.
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