On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:35 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
> Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group,
> therefore adding these masks will easier future use.
>
> I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and
> not use at all.
Does this really need to be in uAPI?
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 18:22:47 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:35 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
> > Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group,
> > therefore adding these masks will easier future use.
> >
> > I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and
> > not use at all.
>
> Does this really need to be in uAPI?
I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not
sure ethtool would need it.
I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if
we see that it is necessary. What do you think?
--
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote:
> > Does this really need to be in uAPI?
>
> I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not
> sure ethtool would need it.
> I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if
> we see that it is necessary. What do you think?
include/linux/net_tstamp.h sounds better to me, Willem may disagree..
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote:
> > > Does this really need to be in uAPI?
> >
> > I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not
> > sure ethtool would need it.
> > I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if
> > we see that it is necessary. What do you think?
>
> include/linux/net_tstamp.h sounds better to me, Willem may disagree..
Sounds like the right home to me for non uapi timestamping, too.