RE: [RFC PATCH 3/4] igb: add support for extended PHC gettime
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Date: 2018-11-01 01:55:28
Also in:
intel-wired-lan
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Date: 2018-11-01 01:55:28
Also in:
intel-wired-lan
-----Original Message----- From: Miroslav Lichvar [mailto:mlichvar@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:40 AM To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; Keller, Jacob E [off-list ref] Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] igb: add support for extended PHC gettime On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 07:29:16PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:quoted
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:27:41PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:quoted
+static int igb_ptp_gettimex(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, + struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts) +{ + struct igb_adapter *igb = container_of(ptp, struct igb_adapter, + ptp_caps); + struct e1000_hw *hw = &igb->hw; + unsigned long flags; + u32 lo, hi; + u64 ns; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&igb->tmreg_lock, flags); + + /* 82576 doesn't have SYSTIMR */ + if (igb->hw.mac.type == e1000_82576) {Instead of if/then/else, can't you follow the pattern of providing different function flavors ...I can. I was just trying to minimize the amount of triplicated code. In the next version I'll add a patch to deprecate the old gettime functions, as Jacob suggested, and replace them with the extended versions, so the amount of code will not change that much.
Excellent. -Jake
Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar