On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:53:11AM +0000, Stathis Voukelatos wrote: > On 25/02/15 09:50, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > >The Linux kernel already fully supports this kind of application via > >the SIOCSHWTSTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPING, and PHC mechanisms. We certainly > >don't need another another interface just for someone's warped > >hardware design. > > > >I suggest that you find a way to make your HW work within the existing > >frame work. > > The driver already uses that framework for returning timestamps to > user space. It does not introduce any new interface. No, it only abuses the interfaces that we already have. The time stamp handling is not "within the existing frame work" by any means. However, there is a way to integrate this hardware properly... > The H/W could not support that: With these new explanations, now I understand the code and how this is supposed to work. I'll put further comments in a reply to your newer series. Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
