On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:45:51 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:58:58 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for you to fully clarify the "per socket vs global"
> > aspect, but independently of that, at least I understand why this is a
> > counter-argument to my proposal. I need to tune it a bit (ASSUMING that
> > we want DMA timestamps to "look like" hwtimestamps, and not like their
> > own thing, to user space), because the PHC index would no longer fully
> > identify a hwtstamp provider, so we need something more.
> >
> > I imagine both ETHTOOL_MSG_TSINFO_GET and ETHTOOL_MSG_TSINFO_SET to
> > support a new (nest) nlattr called ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER.
> >
> > This would contain (u32) ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_PHC_INDEX
> > and (u32) ETHTOOL_A_TSINFO_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER. It could be
> > extensible in the future, but this is the baseline and forms the key.
> >
> > The latter takes values from an:
> >
> > enum ethtool_hwstamp_provider_qualifier {
> > ETHTOOL_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER_MAC,
> > ETHTOOL_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER_PHY,
> > ETHTOOL_HWSTAMP_PROVIDER_QUALIFIER_DMA,
> > };
>
> Sounds reasonable. Having more attributes than just PHC index works.
> Given the lack of distinction between MAC and PHY for integrated NICs
> I'd lean towards ditching the "layers" completely and exposing
> an "approximate" vs "precise" boolean. Approximate being the DMA point
> for NICs, but more generically a point that is separated from the wire
> by buffering or other variable length delay. Precise == IEEE 1588
> quality.
Hello Jakub, just wondering.
I can add this hwtstamp provider qualifier in the next series version but it
won't be used as it is set and used at the driver level and no driver is using
it for now. It would not be accepted if I use something that is not used, right?
Do you still think I should add this in v8?
Regards,
--
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
