[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87imbn98dd.fsf@kurt>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 08:27:42 +0200
From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Kamil Alkhouri <kamil.alkhouri@...offenburg.de>,
ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 4/7] net: dsa: hellcreek: Add support for hardware timestamping
On Sun Oct 04 2020, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 01:29:08PM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
>> +/* Enabling/disabling TX and RX HW timestamping for different PTP messages is
>> + * not available in the switch. Thus, this function only serves as a check if
>> + * the user requested what is actually available or not
>> + */
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but to the user it makes zero difference
> whether the hardware takes timestamps or not.
Why not? I think it makes a difference to the user b/o the precision.
> What matters is whether the skb will be delivered to the stack with a
> hardware timestamp or not, so you should definitely accept a
> hwtstamp_config with TX and RX timestamping disabled.
>
Sorry, I cannot follow you here.
Thanks,
Kurt
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists