netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:50:46 +0100
From:   Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>, Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org\"" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

On 30.06.2022 03:23, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:30:08 +0100 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>> For adjusting phase offset it would be great to have set/get of s64 phase
>>> offset.
>>
>> This way it's getting closer and closer to ptp, but still having phase offset is
>> fair point and I will go this way. Jakub, do you have any objections?
> 
> How does the DPLL interface interact with PTP? Either API can set the
> phase.

Well, if the same hardware is exposed to both subsystem, it will be serialised 
by hardware driver. And it goes to hardware implementation on how to deal with 
such changes. Am I wrong?