netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] ptp: Support hardware clocks with additional free running time

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220306165308.GD6290@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date:   Sun, 6 Mar 2022 08:53:08 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com>
Cc:     yangbo.lu@....com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        mlichvar@...hat.com, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] ptp: Support hardware clocks with
 additional free running time

On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 08:49:41AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:56:52AM +0100, Gerhard Engleder wrote:
> 
> > If hardware would support a free running time additionally to the
> > physical clock, then the physical clock does not need to be forced to
> > free running. Thus, the physical clocks can still be synchronized while
> > vclocks are in use.
> 
> So... the HW must provide frame time stamps using the one clock and
> ancillary operations using the other, right?

Looking at your tsnep driver, the requirement is that the HW provide
each frame with TWO time stamps, one from each clock.
 
Thanks,
Richard