Message ID | 20201203102117.8995-1-ceggers@arri.de |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | net: dsa: microchip: PTP support for KSZ956x | expand |
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:21:17AM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote: > The KSZ9563 has a Trigger Output Unit (TOU) which can be used to > generate periodic signals. > > The pulse length can be altered via a device attribute. Device tree is the wrong place for that. Aren't you using PTP_PEROUT_DUTY_CYCLE anyhow? Thanks, Richard
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:36, Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de> wrote: > Should ptp_sysfs be extended with a "pulse" attribute with calls > enable() with only PTP_PEROUT_DUTY_CYCLE set? Use tools/testing/selftests/ptp/testptp.
On Thursday, 3 December 2020, 16:52:46 CET, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:36, Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de> wrote: > > Should ptp_sysfs be extended with a "pulse" attribute with calls > > enable() with only PTP_PEROUT_DUTY_CYCLE set? > > Use tools/testing/selftests/ptp/testptp. Thanks for the hint. Last time I looked at it (5.4), it used to have no "pulse" feature (as the ioctl() interface). Maybe I should also add support for PTP_PEROUT_PHASE to the KSZ driver. regards Christian
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote: > Should ptp_sysfs be extended with a "pulse" attribute with calls > enable() with only PTP_PEROUT_DUTY_CYCLE set? Yes, that would make sense. It would bring sysfs back to feature parity with the ioctls. Thanks, Richard
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:45:56PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote: > > Should ptp_sysfs be extended with a "pulse" attribute with calls > > enable() with only PTP_PEROUT_DUTY_CYCLE set? > > Yes, that would make sense. It would bring sysfs back to feature > parity with the ioctls. Which is a good thing? Anyway, Christian, if you do decide to do that, here's some context why I didn't do it when I added the additional knobs for periodic output: https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04150.html
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 03:00:50AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:45:56PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: > > Yes, that would make sense. It would bring sysfs back to feature > > parity with the ioctls. > > Which is a good thing? Yes, of course it is. I'm sorry I didn't insist on it in the first place! > Anyway, Christian, if you do decide to do that, here's some context why > I didn't do it when I added the additional knobs for periodic output: > https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04150.html I think Christian is proposing a different sysfs file, not a flag in the existing ones. That makes sense to me. Thanks, Richard