[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070605072501.GA15273@enneenne.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:25:01 +0200
From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linuxpps@...enneenne.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: [RFC] PPS: Implementing LinuxPPS API with new syscalls
Hello,
after a little studing on new generic netlink interface and some
letters with Andrew Morton I decided to drop using the netlink API at
all and start using new specific syscalls.
Looking at current LinuxPPS API and at RFC2783 I think we need the
following syscalls:
asmlinkage long sys_time_pps_find(int cmd, int __user *source,
char __user *name, int namelen,
char __user *path, int pathlen);
asmlinkage long sys_time_pps_getparams(int source,
struct pps_params __user *params);
asmlinkage long sys_time_pps_setparams(int source,
const struct pps_params __user *params);
asmlinkage long sys_time_pps_getcap(int source, int __user *mode);
asmlinkage long sys_time_pps_fetch(int source, const int tsformat,
struct pps_info __user *info,
const struct timespec __user *timeout);
In fact:
* the two LinuxPPS functions time_pps_findsource() and
time_pps_findpath() can be implemented with sys_time_pps_find()
specifying proper finding command into "cmd",
* the RFC2783 time_pps_create() and time_pps_destroy() are not needed
since no PPS sources are created or destryed from userspace. The former
can be simply implemented as follow:
static int time_pps_create(int source, pps_handle_t *handle)
{
/* In LinuxPPS there are no differences between a PPS source and
* a PPS handle so we return the same value. */
*handle = source;
return 0;
}
while the latter is just a "return 0".
* the RFC2783 time_pps_kcbind() is not implemented into Linux so it is
just a "return -EOPNOTSUPP".
Also using syscalls the problem regarding the pps_handle_t type
disappears, even if the needed of using time_pps_findsource() or
time_pps_findpath() still remains.
Regarding the file timepps.h I think I should reintroduce it into the
kernel header files since it's needed to define new PPS types and new
syscalls wrappers for RFC2783 compatibility.
Comments? Suggestions? :)
Thanks a lot,
Rodolfo
--
GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@...dd.com
Embedded Systems giometti@...ux.it
UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists