| Message ID | 20231114-feature_ptp_netnext-v7-7-472e77951e40@bootlin.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | acec05fb78abb74fdab2195bfca9a6d38a732643 |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: Make timestamping selectable | expand |
Kory Maincent wrote: > Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group, > therefore adding these masks will easier future use. > > I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and > not use at all. > > Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com> Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:35 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote: > Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group, > therefore adding these masks will easier future use. > > I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and > not use at all. Does this really need to be in uAPI?
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 18:22:47 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:35 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote: > > Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group, > > therefore adding these masks will easier future use. > > > > I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and > > not use at all. > > Does this really need to be in uAPI? I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not sure ethtool would need it. I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if we see that it is necessary. What do you think?
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote: > > Does this really need to be in uAPI? > > I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not > sure ethtool would need it. > I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if > we see that it is necessary. What do you think? include/linux/net_tstamp.h sounds better to me, Willem may disagree..
Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote: > > > Does this really need to be in uAPI? > > > > I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not > > sure ethtool would need it. > > I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if > > we see that it is necessary. What do you think? > > include/linux/net_tstamp.h sounds better to me, Willem may disagree.. Sounds like the right home to me for non uapi timestamping, too.
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h b/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h index a2c66b3d7f0f..df8091998c8d 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h @@ -48,6 +48,14 @@ enum { SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED | \ SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_ACK) +#define SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE_MASK (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE | \ + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE | \ + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE) + +#define SOF_TIMESTAMPING_HARDWARE_MASK (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE | \ + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE | \ + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE) + /** * struct so_timestamping - SO_TIMESTAMPING parameter *
Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group, therefore adding these masks will easier future use. I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and not use at all. Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com> --- include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)