Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 24 May 2020 23:16:22 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com>
Cc:     "maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "yangbo.lu@nxp.com" <yangbo.lu@nxp.com>,
        "john.stultz@linaro.org" <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "sean.j.christopherson@intel.com" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>,
        Steven Price <Steven.Price@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@arm.com>,
        Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>, Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>,
        Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 10/11] arm64: add mechanism to let user choose
 which counter to return
Message-ID: <20200525061622.GA13679@localhost>
References: <20200522083724.38182-1-jianyong.wu@arm.com>
 <20200522083724.38182-11-jianyong.wu@arm.com>
 <20200524021106.GC335@localhost>
 <HE1PR0802MB25552E7C792D3BB9CBE2D2C7F4B30@HE1PR0802MB2555.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0802MB25552E7C792D3BB9CBE2D2C7F4B30@HE1PR0802MB2555.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:50:28AM +0000, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> How about adding an extra argument in struct ptp_clock_info to serve as a flag, then we can control this flag using IOCTL to determine the counter type.

no, No, NO!

> > From your description, this "flag" really should be a module parameter.
> Maybe use flag as a module parameter is a better way.

Yes.

Thanks,
Richard