On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:17:57 +0100 Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 18:24:24 -0800 > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:36 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote: > > > + ops->get_ts_info(dev, &ts_info); > > > + if (ts_info.so_timestamping & > > > + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_HARDWARE_MASK) > > > + data->ts_layer = MAC_TIMESTAMPING; > > > + > > > + if (ts_info.so_timestamping & > > > + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE_MASK) > > > + data->ts_layer = SOFTWARE_TIMESTAMPING; > > > > How does this work? so_timestamping is capabilities, not what's > > enabled now. So if driver supports SW stamping we always return > > SOFTWARE? > > Yes, the software timestamping comes from the MAC capabilities. > I decided to separate software and MAC timestamping. If we select PHY > timestamping we can't use software timestamping and for an user, selecting the > MAC as timestamping seems not logical to use software timestamping. > > Indeed there is a mistake here I should have used "else if" condition. > Mmh in fact, maybe not, because it would breaks the access to software > timestamping until patch 13. > I will remove the SOFTWARE/MAC timestamping distinction from this patch. After thinking again, the "else if" condition works and won't break anything as we could still access software timestamping within the MAC_TIMESTAMPING layer. Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
