lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 4:26 AM
> To: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Hall, Christopher S; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; hpa@zytor.com;
> mingo@redhat.com; john.stultz@linaro.org; x86@kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-
> lan@lists.osuosl.org; peterz@infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to
> PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > So why can't you take N samples from the synced hardware? It does not
> > make any sense to me to switch to the imprecise mode if nsamples > 1.
>
> Ok, then I prefer to leave this "imprecise" method in place and ...
>
> > You can also provide a new IOCTL PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE which returns
> > -ENOSYS if hardware timestamping is not available and avoid the whole
> > nsamples dance for the case where we can get precise timestamps.
>
> have this for the new way.
>
> By keeping the imprecise method, we will be able to run both methods
> on the new hardware. That will help to quantify how imprecise the old
> method is.

This means: remove code changes from the PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl and call getsynctime64() from a new ioctl PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE. Right?

And use the same type (struct ptp_sys_offset) for the new ioctl? Or should a new simplified struct be used? Such as:

struct precise_ptp_sys_offset {
struct ptp_clock_time device;
struct ptp_clock_time system;
};

Does it make sense to keep the "cross-timestamp" capabilities flag as-is?

>
> Thanks,
> Richard



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-24 22:41    [W:1.596 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site