Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:55:17 +0200 | From | Vladimir Oltean <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v7 15/16] net: ethtool: ts: Let the active time stamping layer be selectable |
| |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 08:50:00AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:08:50 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > My understanding of Jakub's email was that he wants to see the functionality > > offered by SIOCGHWTSTAMP and SIOCSHWTSTAMP converted to netlink. I don't > > think that ethtool is the correct netlink family for that, given that > > these aren't ethtool ioctls to begin with. Maybe the new netdev netlink > > family. The conversion in its basic form would offer exactly the same > > functionality. > > Well, ethtool has been the catch all for a lot of random things > for the longest time. The question is whether we want to extend > ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO or add a third API somewhere else. And if we > do - do we also duplicate the functionality of ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO > (i.e. getting capabilities)? > > My vote is that keeping it in ethtool is less bad than 3rd API.
With SIOCSHWTSTAMP also implemented by CAN (and presumably also by wireless in the future), I do wonder whether ethtool is the right place for the netlink conversion.
I wouldn't suggest duplicating ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO towards the netdev netlink family.
> > The concept of an "active phc_index" would not explicitly exist in the > > UAPI. Thus I'm not sure what's with this TSINFO_SET being floated around. > > The only thing would exist is a configurable rx_filter and tx_type per > > hwtstamp provider (aka "{phc_index, qualifier}"). User space will have > > to learn to select the hwtstamp provider it wants to configure through > > netlink, and use for its class of traffic. > > "Active provider" is the one that has TX_ON, rx != FILTER_NONE, right?
In the "implicit" definition of an "active hwtstamp provider", yes.
| |