On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 03:41:29AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Too much confusion, why don't I just show you the code.
Thanks for the explanation. The HW gives the driver work more work to do, but hey, it is transparent to the application, so no problem. > My entire point was that I hope we won't end up with two different ways > to request the one-step TX timestamping of a Sync message. One way for > the termination scenario, one for the forwarding scenario. Yeah, the added complexity is not justified by the benefit. We can't ship code that magically works on some 1-step HW but fails on others. Thus, to implement 1-step TC, user space MUST have a way of knowing how to prepare the Sync message according to the HW scheme, and that entails a new ethtool/etc query. I think it would be possible to support the HW variants, but it is not worth the effort. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
