On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 23:00:34 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote: > > Not sure why you say "not used", though. Are you not planning to expose > > the qualifier as an attribute to the listing of hwtstamp providers > > offered to user space by ETHTOOL_MSG_TSINFO_GET? > > Yes I will, I was just saying that all the PHC would be set as precise for now. > Approximate timestamp quality won't be used because IIUC there are no NIC driver > supporting it yet. Agreed that we should add the attr from the start. Maybe we can ask/work with Rahul <rrameshbabu@xxxxxxxxxx> to implement the right thing in mlx5? Failing that we can mark mlx5 as imprecise, until its sorted out. So that we have both types in the tree.
