On Wed, 29 Nov, 2023 15:56:13 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Thanks for looping me in. We were already looking at this patch series out of interest. I saw your suggestion to rephrase "MAC / DMA" as "precise / approximate", which we really like for mlx5 devices because our "approximate" timestamping logic is not exactly a "MAC" timestamp but its not a port timestamp that has the greater precision we use. I have a task already for implementing support for this ethtool attribute. If folks here are open to it, I can add mlx5 support for both modes in this patch series for the next revision that will entail the discussed changes. > > Failing that we can mark mlx5 as imprecise, until its sorted out. > So that we have both types in the tree. -- Thanks, Rahul Rameshbabu
