On 7/27/2024 6:00 AM, Kory Maincent wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:43:05 -0700 > Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> A driver which supports hardware time stamping must support the >>> -SIOCSHWTSTAMP ioctl and update the supplied struct hwtstamp_config with >>> -the actual values as described in the section on SIOCSHWTSTAMP. It >>> -should also support SIOCGHWTSTAMP. >>> +ndo_hwtstamp_set NDO or the legacy SIOCSHWTSTAMP ioctl and update the >>> +supplied struct hwtstamp_config with the actual values as described in >>> +the section on SIOCSHWTSTAMP. It should also support ndo_hwtstamp_get or >>> +the legacy SIOCGHWTSTAMP. >> >> Can we simply drop the mention of implementing the legacy implementation >> on the kernel side? I guess not all existing drivers have converted yet...? > > Yes indeed.> > In fact, Vlad has already worked on converting all the existing drivers: > https://github.com/vladimiroltean/linux/tree/ndo-hwtstamp-v9 > I can't find any patch series sent to net next. Vlad what is the status on this? > Great! >> I have a similar thought about the other legacy PTP hooks.. it is good >> to completely remove the legacy/deprecated implementations as it means >> drivers can't be published which don't update to new APIs. That >> ultimately just wastes reviewer/maintainer time to point out that it >> must be updated to new APIs. > > Yes but on the userspace side linuxPTP is still using the IOCTLs uAPI that will > become legacy with this series. Maybe it is still a bit early to remove totally > their descriptions in the doc? > Right, they would need to use the netlink implementation to get the new features, but the ioctls can at least be translated to the new kAPI thats in the drivers? Removing the old APIs from the uAPI doc is bad, but I think we can clarify the wording of the doc and update to make it clear where the separation is. I may take a pass at the doc to see if I think I can improve it. > Regards,
