Messages in this thread | | | From | Jianyong Wu <> | Subject | RE: [RFC PATCH v12 10/11] arm64: add mechanism to let user choose which counter to return | Date | Mon, 25 May 2020 06:29:37 +0000 |
| |
Hi Richard,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:16 PM > To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com> > Cc: maz@kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; yangbo.lu@nxp.com; > john.stultz@linaro.org; tglx@linutronix.de; pbonzini@redhat.com; > sean.j.christopherson@intel.com; Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>; > will@kernel.org; Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>; Steven Price > <Steven.Price@arm.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > kernel@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; > kvm@vger.kernel.org; Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@arm.com>; Kaly Xin > <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>; Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>; Wei Chen > <Wei.Chen@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 10/11] arm64: add mechanism to let user choose > which counter to return > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:50:28AM +0000, Jianyong Wu wrote: > > How about adding an extra argument in struct ptp_clock_info to serve as a > flag, then we can control this flag using IOCTL to determine the counter type. > > no, No, NO! > Ok,
> > > From your description, this "flag" really should be a module parameter. > > Maybe use flag as a module parameter is a better way. > > Yes. > It's fine for me, if @maz@kernel.org is not against with it.
Thanks Jianyong
> Thanks, > Richard
| |