linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 08/11] gpiolib: cdev: Add hardware timestamp clock type

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2bfbb684-d9d3-8779-11fe-6b4152f114d6@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:16:04 -0700
From:   Dipen Patel <dipenp@...dia.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:     "thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/11] gpiolib: cdev: Add hardware timestamp clock type


On 6/27/21 4:49 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:48 AM Dipen Patel <dipenp@...dia.com> 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