netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC CPSW switchdev mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:42:13 -0500
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>, <nsekhar@...com>,
        <francois.ozog@...aro.org>, <yogeshs@...com>, <spatton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC CPSW switchdev mode



On 06/05/2018 04:28 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> I hope you are right - question is always in number of available options
>> and which one to select - and, most important, explain it to the end user :(
> 
> The end customer being ptp4linux? At least for Marvell switches, it is
> happy about everything except that the switch is a bit slow, so we
> need to modify some of the time outs in the configuration file.
> 
>> For example:
>> phc_index is returned as part of .get_ts_info() = cpsw_get_ts_info(),
>> so which intf should return phc_index?
> 
> It is not a 1:1 relationship. See:
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c#L61
> 
> All interfaces return the same index.
> 
> In fact, for a switch, having a PHC per port would be odd. That would
> mean you need to sync the PHCs in order to act as a boundary clock.

PHC only one, but hw timestamping blocks are per port.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii