On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:12:32 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote: > > Storing the info about the "user" (netdev, phydev) in the "provider" > > (PHC) feels too much like a layering violation. Why do you need this? > > The things is that, the way to manage the phc depends on the "user". > ndo_hwtstamp_set for netdev and phy_hwtstamp_set for phydev. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11.6/source/net/core/dev_ioctl.c#L323 > > Before PHC was managed by the driver "user" so there was no need for this > information as the core only gives the task to the single "user". This didn't > really works when there is more than one user possible on the net topology. I don't understand. I'm complaining storing netdev state in struct ptp_clock. It's perfectly fine to add the extra info to netdev and PHY topology maintained by the core. > > In general I can't shake the feeling that we're trying to configure > > the "default" PHC for a narrow use case, while the goal should be > > to let the user pick the PHC per socket. > > Indeed PHC per socket would be neat but it would need a lot more work and I am > even not sure how it should be done. Maybe with a new cmsg structure containing > the information of the PHC provider? > In any case the new ETHTOOL UAPI is ready to support multiple PHC at the same > time when it will be supported. > This patch series is something in the middle, being able to enable all the PHC > on a net topology but only one at a time. I understand, I don't want to push you towards implementing all that. But if we keep that in mind as the north star we should try to align this default / temporary solution. If the socket API takes a PHC ID as an input, the configuration we take in should also be maintained as "int default_phc", not pointers to things. IOW I'm struggling to connect the dots how the code you're adding now will be built _upon_ rather than _on the side_ of when socket PHC selection is in place.
