On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:19:59 -0700, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 07:35:41PM -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > On April 30, 2021 18:00:58 "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 15:26:09 -0700, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote: > > > > Looks like the engine can be dropped since all timestamps are in sync. > > I > > just have one more question here. The timestamp itself is 36 bits. > > Should > > the uapi also report the timestamp width to the user OR should I just > > return the lower 32 bits of the timestamp? > > > > Yeah, I think reporting the timestamp width is a good idea since we're > > reporting the period/frequency here. > > Actually, I forgot that we are handling the overflow before returning the > cs_cycles to the user and overflow handling was the only reason I thought > user should know the width. Would you stil recommend returning the width in > the uapi? The width is needed for userspace to figure out if overflow has occured between two successive query calls. I don't think I see this happening in the code. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
