Thread (20 messages) 20 messages, 5 authors, 2021-08-07

Re: [net-next, v5, 08/11] net: sock: extend SO_TIMESTAMPING for PHC binding

From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-07-04 13:33:41
Also in: linux-kselftest, lkml, mptcp

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 04:11:59PM +0800, Yangbo Lu wrote:
Since PTP virtual clock support is added, there can be
several PTP virtual clocks based on one PTP physical
clock for timestamping.

This patch is to extend SO_TIMESTAMPING API to support
PHC (PTP Hardware Clock) binding by adding a new flag
SOF_TIMESTAMPING_BIND_PHC. When PTP virtual clocks are
in use, user space can configure to bind one for
timestamping, but PTP physical clock is not supported
and not needed to bind.
Would it not be better to simply bind automatically?

Like this pseudo code:

	if (hw_timestamping_requested() && interface_is_vclock()) {
		bind_vclock();
	}

It would be great to avoid forcing user space to use a new option.

Especially because NOT setting the option makes no sense.  Or maybe
there is a use case for omitting the option?


Thoughts?

Thanks,
Richard
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help