[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net 04/10] idpf: negotiate PTP capabilies and get PTP clock

[Willem de Bruijn]

Olech, Milena wrote:
> On 11/14/2024 9:20 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> > Milena Olech wrote:
> > > PTP capabilities are negotiated using virtchnl command. Add get
> > > capabilities function, direct access to read the PTP clock time and
> > > direct access to read the cross timestamp - system time and PTP clock
> > > time. Set initial PTP capabilities exposed to the stack.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Milena Olech <milena.olech at intel.com>
> >
> > Tested-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com>
> >
> > >  /**
> > >   * struct idpf_ptp - PTP parameters
> > >   * @info: structure defining PTP hardware capabilities
> > >   * @clock: pointer to registered PTP clock device
> > >   * @adapter: back pointer to the adapter
> > > + * @cmd: HW specific command masks
> > > + * @dev_clk_regs: the set of registers to access the device clock
> > > + * @caps: PTP capabilities negotiated with the Control Plane
> > > + * @get_dev_clk_time_access: access type for getting the device clock time
> > > + * @get_cross_tstamp_access: access type for the cross timestamping
> > >   */
> > >  struct idpf_ptp {
> > >  	struct ptp_clock_info info;
> > >  	struct ptp_clock *clock;
> > >  	struct idpf_adapter *adapter;
> > > +	struct idpf_ptp_cmd cmd;
> > > +	struct idpf_ptp_dev_clk_regs dev_clk_regs;
> > > +	u32 caps;
> > > +	enum idpf_ptp_access get_dev_clk_time_access:16;
> > > +	enum idpf_ptp_access get_cross_tstamp_access:16;
> >
> > why are these 16 bit fields, when they are only ternary options?
> 
> Willem, I was trying to avoid holes in the struct and this is the best
> shape I was able to obtain. I'll try to reorder it in v2 and limit the
> 16 bit.

Does it work to reserve the number of bits needed for these enums
and add an explicit padding field for the remainder? Say

    u32 get_dev_clk_time_access:2;
    u32 get_cross_tstamp_access:2;
    u32 reserved:28;

No need to use the explicit enum type with fixed size allocation.
Though using that and/or leaving any padding implicit is fine too.