Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230929023740.1611161-1-maheshb@google.com> <ZRiQqLYpzJGbiqYX@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZRiQqLYpzJGbiqYX@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?TWFoZXNoIEJhbmRld2FyICjgpK7gpLngpYfgpLYg4KSs4KSC4KSh4KWH4KS14KS+4KSwKQ==?= 
        <maheshb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:24:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF2d9jj4m4i278PN3F91VVudEG4nLFU8PJqk9Dnkqf=QOXTX0A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ptp: add ptp_gettimex64any() support
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Don Hatchett <hatch@google.com>,
        Yuliang Li <yuliangli@google.com>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 07:37:40PM -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h b/include/uapi/linux/ptp_cl=
ock.h
> > index 05cc35fc94ac..1f1e98966cff 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ptp_clock.h
> > @@ -69,6 +69,14 @@
> >   */
> >  #define PTP_PEROUT_V1_VALID_FLAGS    (0)
> >
> > +enum ptp_ts_types {
> > +     PTP_TS_CYCLES =3D 0,
> > +     PTP_TS_REAL,
> > +     PTP_TS_MONO,
> > +     PTP_TS_RAW,
> > +     PTP_TS_MAX,
> > +};
>
> There is no need for a new set of enumerated values.  Why not use the
> existing clockid_t ?
>
I'm not sure which one you are referring to. These defs need to be
UAPI and the one defined in time.h are not all relevant in this case
(we just need only a few of those) hence the definition. However, if I
missed something, please point me to it.

> Thanks,
> Richard