[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201012214254.GA1310@hoboy>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:42:54 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Kamil Alkhouri <kamil.alkhouri@...offenburg.de>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
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>,
ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 4/7] net: dsa: hellcreek: Add support for
hardware timestamping
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:53:58PM +0200, Kamil Alkhouri wrote:
> > By the way, how would you see the split between an unsynchronized and
> > a
> > synchronized PHC be implemented in the Linux kernel?
If you want, you can run your PHC using the linuxptp "free_running"
option. Then, you can use the TIME_STATUS_NP management request to
use the remote time signal in your application.
> I'm not an expert in kernel implementation but we have plans to discuss
> possible approaches in the near future.
I don't see any need for kernel changes in this area.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists