[Intel-wired-lan] [RFC net-next 4/7] net: add ioctl interface for recover reference clock on netdev
Kubalewski, Arkadiusz
arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com
Tue Aug 17 10:35:29 UTC 2021
>On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 6:18 PM Arkadiusz Kubalewski
><arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * Structure used for passing data with SIOCSSYNCE and SIOCGSYNCE ioctls
>> + */
>> +struct synce_ref_clk_cfg {
>> + __u8 pin_id;
>> + _Bool enable;
>> +};
>
>I'm not sure if there are any guarantees about the size and alignment of _Bool,
>maybe better use __u8 here as well, if only for clarity.
>
Sure, will fix that in next patch, seems reasonable
>> +#endif /* _NET_SYNCE_H */
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sockios.h b/include/uapi/linux/sockios.h
>> index 7d1bccbbef78..32c7d4909c31 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/sockios.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sockios.h
>> @@ -153,6 +153,10 @@
>> #define SIOCSHWTSTAMP 0x89b0 /* set and get config */
>> #define SIOCGHWTSTAMP 0x89b1 /* get config */
>>
>> +/* synchronous ethernet config per physical function */
>> +#define SIOCSSYNCE 0x89c0 /* set and get config */
>> +#define SIOCGSYNCE 0x89c1 /* get config */
>
>I understand that these are traditionally using the old-style 16-bit
>numbers, but is there any reason to keep doing that rather than
>making them modern like this?
Personally I would try to keep it one way, just for consistency,
but you might be right - making it modern way is better option.
If no other objections to this comment I am going to change it according to
Arnd's suggestion in next patch.
>
>#define SIOCSSYNCE _IOWR(0x89, 0xc0, struct synce_ref_clk_cfg)
>/* set and get config */
>#define SIOCGSYNCE _IOR(0x89, 0xc1, struct synce_ref_clk_cfg)
>/* get config */
>
> Arnd
>
Thank you,
Arkadiusz
More information about the Intel-wired-lan
mailing list