Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 31 Aug 2019 08:01:49 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Christopher S Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PTP: add support for one-shot output
Message-ID: <20190831150149.GB1692@localhost>
References: <20190829095825.2108-1-felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
 <20190829095825.2108-2-felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
 <20190829172509.GB2166@localhost>
 <20190829172848.GC2166@localhost>
 <87r253ulpn.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87r253ulpn.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:00:20AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> seems like this should be defined together with the other flags? If
> that's the case, it seems like we would EXTTS and PEROUT masks.

Yes, let's make the meanings of the bit fields clear...

--- ptp_clock.h ---

/*
 * Bits of the ptp_extts_request.flags field:
 */
#define PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE	BIT(0)
#define PTP_RISING_EDGE		BIT(1)
#define PTP_FALLING_EDGE	BIT(2)
#define PTP_EXTTS_VALID_FLAGS	(PTP_ENABLE_FEATURE | \
				 PTP_RISING_EDGE | \
				 PTP_FALLING_EDGE)

/*
 * Bits of the ptp_perout_request.flags field:
 */
#define PTP_PEROUT_ONE_SHOT	BIT(0)
#define PTP_PEROUT_VALID_FLAGS	(PTP_PEROUT_ONE_SHOT)

struct ptp_extts_request {
	unsigned int flags;  /* Bit field of PTP_EXTTS_VALID_FLAGS. */
};

struct ptp_perout_request {
	unsigned int flags;  /* Bit field of PTP_PEROUT_VALID_FLAGS. */
};


Thanks,
Richard