RE: [RFC net-next 4/7] net: add ioctl interface for recover reference clock on netdev

["Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com>]

>On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 6:18 PM Arkadiusz Kubalewski
><arkadiusz.kubalewski@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