netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 3/4] net: Let the active time stamping layer be selectable.

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: <YkxEIZfA0H8yvrzn@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:29:05 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc:     Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, richardcochran@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, mlichvar@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        qiangqing.zhang@....com, vladimir.oltean@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 3/4] net: Let the active time stamping
 layer be selectable.

> > Yes, the limitations described above are exactly one of the reasons to
> > make the timestamping layer configurable at run time as done by these
> > patches.
> 
> Seems like PHY TS support belongs to HW description category, so could it be device tree material,
> like generic property defining which layer should do timestamping?

Maybe. Device tree is supposed to describe the hardware, not how you
configure the hardware. Which PTP you using is a configuration choice,
so i expect some people will argue it should not be in DT.

   Andrew