Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group,
therefore adding these masks will easier future use.

I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and
not use at all.

Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>
---
 include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h b/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h
index a2c66b3d7f0f..df8091998c8d 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h
@@ -48,6 +48,14 @@ enum {
 					 SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED | \
 					 SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_ACK)
 
+#define SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE_MASK	(SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE | \
+					 SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE | \
+					 SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE)
+
+#define SOF_TIMESTAMPING_HARDWARE_MASK	(SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE | \
+					 SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE | \
+					 SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE)
+
 /**
  * struct so_timestamping - SO_TIMESTAMPING parameter
  *

-- 
2.25.1

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:35 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
> Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group,
> therefore adding these masks will easier future use.
> 
> I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and
> not use at all.

Does this really need to be in uAPI?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 18:22:47 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:28:35 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
> > Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group,
> > therefore adding these masks will easier future use.
> > 
> > I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and
> > not use at all.  
> 
> Does this really need to be in uAPI?

I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not
sure ethtool would need it.
I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if
we see that it is necessary. What do you think?


-- 
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote:
> > Does this really need to be in uAPI?  
> 
> I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not
> sure ethtool would need it.
> I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if
> we see that it is necessary. What do you think?

include/linux/net_tstamp.h sounds better to me, Willem may disagree..

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0100 Köry Maincent wrote:
> > > Does this really need to be in uAPI?  
> > 
> > I have put it in the same place as SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags but indeed I am not
> > sure ethtool would need it.
> > I can move it to include/linux/net_tstamp.h and we will move back to uapi if
> > we see that it is necessary. What do you think?
> 
> include/linux/net_tstamp.h sounds better to me, Willem may disagree..

Sounds like the right home to me for non uapi timestamping, too.

Kory Maincent wrote:
> Timestamping software or hardware flags are often used as a group,
> therefore adding these masks will easier future use.
> 
> I did not use SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SYS_HARDWARE flag as it is deprecated and
> not use at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>

Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>