On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:52:55 +0200 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So you only support PHYLIB? > > > > > > The semantics need to be better documented :( > > > > Yes as we don't really know how each MAC deal with the timestamping > > before ndo_hwstamp_get/set. Using phylib only allows us to be sure these > > NDO are implemented and the management of timestamping is coherent in the > > MAC. Also It will push people to move on to these NDOs. > > > > Ok I will add documentation. > > When Jakub says "the semantics need to be better documented", I'm also > thinking of a different direction. > > From what I understand, Maxime is working on representing multiple > phylib PHYs in the UAPI: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20231117162323.626979-1-maxime.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx/ Yes I am also following his patch series. > Does your UAPI proposal make it possible in any way to select > timestamping in phylib PHY A rather than PHY B? Or do you think it is > extensible to support that, somehow? It does not support it for now. I didn't want to base my work on his series as it could work without it for now and I didn't want to wait to have his series accepted. It is more a future possible support as I don't have anything to test it and I don't know if such hardware exists right now. I think it will be extensible to support that, my thinking was to create this struct in net_device struct: struct { enum layer; u32 id; } ts; With id saving the phy_index of the PHY X used when the layer PHY is selected. This id could also be used to store the timestamp point in case of several timestamp in a MAC. Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
