From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1805C4320E for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F8060FED for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233660AbhG3DHL (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:07:11 -0400 Received: from mail-dm6nam10on2060.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.93.60]:64737 "EHLO NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229971AbhG3DHL (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:07:11 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DHauhoCssFTMYNbxLwTQUexjobuPveUDIhoL7GNZFZljaV6MSqiaPw/NGj+asJFl7Gh2wNaGvQTXPBXEpBb/scL3Jh0IT8fMsUN2zcd5S/Hsz02TB+AzlPWMxnv2pKpu3puX2hlGyROJCaAfIYkKRwvWEE8yt6KTNZzGZ4lMVUCG1BrOfzgof78Kyg+nLF+4iNrwlSWB0SgYtH8YXlkMmedsqktkpFHYPhRXQkRXCMwAlrw5jLUIers/vY6qtzmtJAlaS2vAu+2e/XO1fSHrO+GHQtIbhrxNa1BJZIb/k8eKAC1ICBF4ZG0A/oZTXbjftanJxHKe9hctekx1XCPd1g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=OXjphJzuSa0fuTg0rixMXjTZ8V8rcOxqVszxF6wKcfQ=; b=I9ZiBHNt0F5gJr+JorbZg/TKK+k7+H2HdBU+fNS5hkMUoY3AVXuaCTXxX5jtLnJTv/KVHT//EIOo1kHMx+NFuMdDLfkbZE7Lv+VkRdSfyfEaX/bcXc491JRPrvuhOt1eExhmJfA5JDkPzIwjWPoGmnk2BQzNWwAVCGDsdmCnmsv6Lj+zcqAXmSFmk9V8bho0NMNqP7VYHyabdeKqm3Q+I9KHLpCMgzI4x4IfanIdRTWC+Y3oVQMg08NQNZbfWnGSiynPB3zdGQOaFMUbuVR8tfA0jhf7249jQEs/Op41UjBsEhSICKDWPGg2ZpIUC43VJvJKq063wDKVz4KOo5C1sQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 216.228.112.34) smtp.rcpttodomain=vger.kernel.org smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=nvidia.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Nvidia.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=OXjphJzuSa0fuTg0rixMXjTZ8V8rcOxqVszxF6wKcfQ=; b=Ur9WH04cLH/BzrQeHPZaVIDUPB/oqcBvCU5KNqlr29SgqvJwfKjGjYDNYlgMxBS6Cer5au5o8ElDGIchx7wO2Zk2f6J8yQXtHivSiikMceLKFVcGmT05O6hP6J8fDF7rMUVh+uo9ysrdZs501vSKSGg3CBhuquRkCC4SZDLFBY9K2GCkpeGFJy2pdMGFk/3d9Qgw6DC1d4Ub5uVYv8LRJRCP2Q+ehbMAmSLlR5ZQd1HJe+vrKr8NML3L9w98/SUINlBOO/jd22YAjvExfdrMhc+4AeQWrWNcu3iw3cQAzLk//AvqTDY9RIAaTHSrDchNNNCvcXWnrvuaFLiKvSBtew== Received: from MWHPR14CA0049.namprd14.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:81::11) by BL1PR12MB5320.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:314::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4373.21; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:07:05 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM11FT012.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:81:cafe::8c) by MWHPR14CA0049.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:300:81::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4373.18 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:07:05 +0000 X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 216.228.112.34) smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; vger.kernel.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nvidia.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates 216.228.112.34 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=216.228.112.34; helo=mail.nvidia.com; Received: from mail.nvidia.com (216.228.112.34) by CO1NAM11FT012.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.175.192) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.4373.18 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:07:05 +0000 Received: from [172.17.173.69] (172.20.187.5) by HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:07:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC 08/11] gpiolib: cdev: Add hardware timestamp clock type To: Linus Walleij CC: "thierry.reding@gmail.com" , Jon Hunter , linux-kernel , linux-tegra , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Bartosz Golaszewski , Kent Gibson , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux Doc Mailing List , Rob Herring References: <20210625235532.19575-1-dipenp@nvidia.com> <20210625235532.19575-9-dipenp@nvidia.com> X-Nvconfidentiality: public From: Dipen Patel Message-ID: <2bfbb684-d9d3-8779-11fe-6b4152f114d6@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:16:04 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [172.20.187.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) To HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 83cc6103-438c-4f3f-68df-08d953071c35 X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BL1PR12MB5320: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:7691; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:216.228.112.34;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:mail.nvidia.com;PTR:schybrid03.nvidia.com;CAT:NONE;SFS:(4636009)(396003)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(46966006)(36840700001)(426003)(70586007)(70206006)(53546011)(2616005)(316002)(4744005)(8936002)(6916009)(31686004)(7416002)(336012)(4326008)(478600001)(356005)(2906002)(86362001)(31696002)(16576012)(47076005)(82740400003)(82310400003)(54906003)(186003)(8676002)(16526019)(26005)(36860700001)(36906005)(7636003)(5660300002)(36756003)(83380400001)(43740500002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; X-OriginatorOrg: Nvidia.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2021 03:07:05.1645 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 83cc6103-438c-4f3f-68df-08d953071c35 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.34];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT012.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL1PR12MB5320 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On 6/27/21 4:49 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:48 AM Dipen Patel wrote: > > Just a quick question about this: > >> + GPIO_V2_LINE_FLAG_EVENT_CLOCK_HARDWARE | \ > Is the usage intended to be such that since hardware timestamp > can not be guaranteed we need to ask for it and fail and if that > fails maybe the software wants to fall back to the realtime or > common timestamp? > > I'm thinking from the view of libgpiod or similar apps that abstract > this and they will be "I want to use hardware timestamps if and > only if it is available, otherwise I want to use this other timestamp" > or is that use case uncommon, such that either you know exactly > what you want or you should not be messing with hardware > timestamps? The way currently is implemented, if you have requested FLAG_EVENT_CLOCK_HARDWARE and it fails, control will return to userspace with an error. There is no fallback. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij