[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181031144935.GR31668@localhost>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:35 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"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
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:40:03AM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:31:09PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > I think there could be a flag in ptp_system_timestamp, or a parameter
> > of gettimex64(), which would enable/disable reading of the system
> > clock.
>
> I'm not a fan of functions that change their behavior based on flags
> in their input parameters.
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).
struct ptp_system_timestamp {
struct timespec64 pre_ts;
struct timespec64 post_ts;
};
int (*gettimex64)(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct timespec64 *ts,
struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts);
--
Miroslav Lichvar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists