> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:29 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; konstatin.ananyev at intel.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] add sample ptp slave application > > 2015-11-13 16:09, Pablo de Lara: > > V6->v7: > > - Simplified common functionality for timecounters and make it more > generic. > > 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 with 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
