> -----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

Reply via email to