On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:05:49 +0200 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 01:37:37PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Is it an accurate summary? > > > > Yes. > > > > For now we can impose the requirement that only one can be active > > easily at the kernel level. But the uAPI should allow expressing more. > > I see. That's quite something to think about for Köry. In its defense, > I also agree that this idea seems the most orthogonal to everything else > that we have or may want to add in the future, and is not likely to > become obsoleted by some other mechanism that can achieve the same > thing, but in a more flexible way. It's just that it's quite the task. > > I sense it may be time to dust off and submit the rest of my > ndo_hwtstamp_get()/ ndo_hwtstamp_set() conversions before a netlink > conversion of SIOCGHWTSTAMP/SIOCSHWTSTAMP could even take place... > https://github.com/vladimiroltean/linux/commits/ndo-hwtstamp-v9 Ok I kind of got an idea of what is your prerequisites. If I summarize, a solution could be this: - Expand struct hwtstamp_config with a phc_index member for the SIOCG/SHWTSTAMP commands. To keep backward compatibility if phc_index is not set in the hwtstamp_config data from userspace use the default hwtstamp (the default being selected as done in my patch series). Is this possible, would it breaks things? - In netlink part, send one netlink tsinfo skb for each phc_index. Could be done in a later patch series: - Expand netlink TSINFO with ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER. Describing this struct: enum ethtool_hwstamp_provider_qualifier { ETHTOOL_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER_PRECISE, ETHTOOL_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER_APPROX, }; Set the desired qualifier through TSINFO_SET or through SIOCSHWTSTAMP by expanding again the struct hwtstamp_config. Do you think this is feasible? I might miss some core stuff. Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
