[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5884D121B2@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 22:08:52 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 4/4] ixgbe: add support for extended PHC gettime
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@...il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:17 PM
> To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
> Cc: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; intel-wired-
> lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] ixgbe: add support for extended PHC gettime
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:49:35PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> >
> > How about separating the PHC timestamp from the ptp_system_timestamp
> > structure and use NULL to indicate we don't want to read the system
> > clock? A gettimex64(ptp, ts, NULL) call would be equal to
> > gettime64(ptp, ts).
>
> Doesn't sound too bad to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
Yep, this seems fine to me as well.
Regards,
Jake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists