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: <20220307140531.GA29247@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 06:05:31 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     gerhard@...leder-embedded.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, mlichvar@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        vinicius.gomes@...el.com, yangbo.lu@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] ptp: Support hardware clocks with
 additional free running time

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 01:07:51PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
> Richard Cochran wrote:
> > You are adding eight bytes per frame for what is arguably an extreme
> > niche case.
> 
> I don't think it is a niche case, btw. I was always wondering why
> NXP introduced the vclock thingy. And apparently it is for
> 802.1AS-rev, but one use case for that is 802.1Qbv and there you'll
> need a (synchronized) hardware clock to control the gates. So while
> we can have multiple time domain support with the vclock, we cannot
> use Qbv with them. That was something I have always wondered about.
> Or.. maybe I'm missing something here.

Niche is relative.

Believe it or not, the overwhelmingly great majority of people using
Linux have no interest in TSN.

Thanks,
Richard