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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y/3ubSj5+2C5xbZu@shell.armlinux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 12:07:09 +0000 From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> Cc: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, andrew@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: phy: add Marvell PHY PTP support [multicast/DSA issues] On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:19:22PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:09:05PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > Looking at that link, I'm only seeing that message, with none of > > the patches nor the discussion. Digging back in my mailbox, I > > find that the patches weren't threaded to the cover message, which > > makes it quite difficult to go back and review the discussion. > > Sorry about that. By accident I omitted --thread=shallow that time. > > > Looking back briefly at the discussion on patch 3, was the reason > > this approach died due to the request to have something more flexible, > > supporting multiple hardware timestamps per packet? > > I still think the approach will work, but I guess I got distracted > with other stuff and forgot about it. > > The "multiple hardware timestamps per packet" is a nice idea, but it > would require a new user API, and so selectable MAC/PHY on the > existing API is still needed. I agree - even when we have support for multiple hardware timestamps, we still need the existing API to work in a sensible way, and we need a way to choose which hardware timestamp we want the existing API to report. So yes, it's a nice idea to support multiple hardware timestamps, but I think that's an entirely separate problem to solving the current issue, which is a blocking issue to adding support for PTP on some platforms. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists