From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] add sample ptp slave application Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:38:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1447332938-201120-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com> <1447430954-94167-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com> <2862850.gOUeStJOPQ@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684F495DE for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:38:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2862850.gOUeStJOPQ@xps13> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:29 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; konstatin.ananyev@intel.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] add sample ptp slave application >=20 > 2015-11-13 16:09, Pablo de Lara: > > V6->v7: > > - Simplified common functionality for timecounters and make it more > generic. >=20 > So you chose to drop the read() callback? > I think it's better. What was the benefit of having it? Yes, I looked at the structure and functions differently, with the intention of making them more independent of the IEEE1588 code, so I removed all references to it (the read() function needed an argument w= ith the device information). It was just another approach, but if I wanted to take that out, I had to change slightly the input parameters of the functions, so now they accept an external read (cleaner indeed). Thanks for the comments. Pablo