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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:22:04 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: "Machnikowski, Maciej" <maciej.machnikowski@...el.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, "richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>, "abyagowi@...com" <abyagowi@...com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETEECSTATE message to get SyncE status On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:14:45PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:58:05 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > > The only source type above is 'port' with the ability to set the > > > > relevant port, but more can be added. Obviously, 'devlink clock show' > > > > will give you the current source in addition to other information such > > > > as frequency difference with respect to the input frequency. > > > > > > We considered devlink interface for configuring the clock/DPLL, but a > > > new concept was born at the list to add a DPLL subsystem that will > > > cover more use cases, like a TimeCard. > > > > The reason I suggested devlink is that it is suited for device-wide > > configuration and it is already used by both MAC drivers and the > > TimeCard driver. If we have a good reason to create a new generic > > netlink family for this stuff, then OK. > > For NICs mapping between devlink instances and HW is not clear. > Most register devlink per PCI dev which usually maps to a Eth port. > So if we have one DPLL on a 2 port NIC mapping will get icky, no? Yes, having to represent the same EEC in multiple devlink instances is not nice. > > Is the motivation to save the boilerplate code associated with new > genetlink family or something more? I don't mind either way. I simply wanted to understand the motivation for not using any existing framework. The above argument is convincing enough, IMO.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists