netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 3/5] dt-bindings: net: phy: add timestamp preferred choice property

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: <20230511152550.4de3da1f@kmaincent-XPS-13-7390>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:25:50 +0200
From: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, glipus@...il.com,
 maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev,
 richardcochran@...il.com, gerhard@...leder-embedded.com,
 thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 robh+dt@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 3/5] dt-bindings: net: phy: add
 timestamp preferred choice property

On Thu, 11 May 2023 16:10:08 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:10:43AM +0200, Köry Maincent wrote:
> > If a future PHY, featured like this TI PHYTER, is supported in the future
> > the default timestamp will be the MAC and we won't be able to select the
> > PHY by default.
> > Another example is my case with the 88E151x PHY, on the Russell side with
> > the Macchiatobin board, the MAC is more precise, and in my side with a
> > custom board with macb MAC, the PHY is more precise. Be able to select the
> > prefer one from devicetree is convenient.  
> 
> If convenience is all that there is, I guess that's not a very strong
> argument for putting something in the device tree which couldn't have
> been handled by user space through an init script, and nothing would
> have been broken as a result of that.

The user may not and don't need to know which hardware timestamping is better.
He just want to use the best one by default without investigation and
benchmarking.
It is more related to the hardware design of the board which should be
described in the devicetree, don't you think? Of course it should not break
anything and if it does, well then let the user select it in userspace.
But if you really think my point is irrelevant then I will drop this feature.