Hi Mahesh
What is the status of your patch?
if your patch is upstreamed , then it will have all I need.
But, If not , I will upstream my patch.
BR,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:56 AM Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)
<maheshb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:48 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 02 2024 at 16:37, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:37 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > The modification that you have proposed (in a couple of posts back)
> > > would work but it's still not ideal since the pre/post ts are not
> > > close enough as they are currently (properly implemented!)
> > > gettimex64() would have. The only way to do that would be to have
> > > another ioctl as I have proposed which is a superset of current
> > > gettimex64 and pre-post collection is the closest possible.
> >
> > Errm. What I posted as sketch _is_ using gettimex64() with the extra
> > twist of the flag vs. a clockid (which is an implementation detail) and
> > the difference that I carry the information in ptp_system_timestamp
> > instead of needing a new argument clockid to all existing callbacks
> > because the modification to ptp_read_prets() and postts() will just be
> > sufficient, no?
> >
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> > For the case where the driver does not provide gettimex64() then the
> > extension of the original offset ioctl is still providing a better
> > mechanism than the proposed syscall.
> >
> > I also clearly said that all drivers should be converted over to
> > gettimex64().
> >
> I agree. Honestly that should have been mandatory and
> ptp_register_clock() should fail otherwise! Probably should have been
> part of gettimex64 implementation :(
>
> I don't think we can do anything other than just hoping all driver
> implementations include gettimex64 implementation.
>
> > > Having said that, the 'flag' modification proposal is a good backup
> > > for the drivers that don't have good implementation (close enough but
> > > not ideal). Also, you don't need a new ioctl-op. So if we really want
> > > precision, I believe, we need a new ioctl op (with supporting
> > > implementation similar to the mlx4 code above). but we want to save
> > > the new ioctl-op and have less precision then proposed modification
> > > would work fine.
> >
> > I disagree. The existing gettimex64() is good enough if the driver
> > implements it correctly today. If not then those drivers need to be
> > fixed independent of this.
> >
> > So assumed that a driver does:
> >
> > gettimex64()
> > ptp_prets(sts);
> > read_clock();
> > ptp_postts(sts);
> >
> > today then having:
> >
> > static inline void ptp_read_system_prets(struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts)
> > {
> > if (sts) {
> > if (sts->flags & PTP_SYS_OFFSET_MONO_RAW)
> > ktime_get_raw_ts64(&sts->pre_ts);
> > else
> > ktime_get_real_ts64(&sts->pre_ts);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > static inline void ptp_read_system_postts(struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts)
> > {
> > if (sts) {
> > if (sts->flags & PTP_SYS_OFFSET_MONO_RAW)
> > ktime_get_raw_ts64(&sts->post_ts);
> > else
> > ktime_get_real_ts64(&sts->post_ts);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > or
> >
> > static inline void ptp_read_system_prets(struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts)
> > {
> > if (sts) {
> > switch (sts->clockid) {
> > case CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW:
> > time_get_raw_ts64(&sts->pre_ts);
> > break;
> > case CLOCK_REALTIME:
> > ktime_get_real_ts64(&sts->pre_ts);
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > static inline void ptp_read_system_postts(struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts)
> > {
> > if (sts) {
> > switch (sts->clockid) {
> > case CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW:
> > time_get_raw_ts64(&sts->post_ts);
> > break;
> > case CLOCK_REALTIME:
> > ktime_get_real_ts64(&sts->post_ts);
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > is doing the exact same thing as your proposal but without touching any
> > driver which implements gettimex64() correctly at all.
> >
> I see. Yes, this makes sense.
>
> > While your proposal requires to touch every single driver for no reason,
> > no?
> >
> > It is just an implementation detail whether you use a flag or a
> > clockid. You can carry the clockid for the clocks which actually can be
> > read in that context in a reserved field of PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED:
> >
> > struct ptp_sys_offset_extended {
> > unsigned int n_samples; /* Desired number of measurements. */
> > clockid_t clockid;
> > unsigned int rsv[2]; /* Reserved for future use. */
> > };
> >
> > and in the IOCTL:
> >
> > if (extoff->clockid != CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > sts.clockid = extoff->clockid;
> >
> > and it all just works, no?
> >
> Yes, this should work. However, I didn't check if struct
> ptp_system_timestamp is used in some other context.
>
> > I have no problem to decide that PTP_SYS_OFFSET will not get this
> > treatment and the drivers have to be converted over to
> > PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED.
> >
> > But adding yet another callback just to carry a clockid as argument is a
> > more than pointless exercise as I demonstrated.
> >
> Agreed. As I said, I thought we cannot change the gettimex64() without
> breaking the compatibility but the fact that CLOCK_REALTIME is "0"
> works well for the backward compatibility case.
>
> I can spin up an updated patch/series that updates gettimex64
> implementation instead of adding a new ioctl-op If you all agree.
>
> thanks,
> --mahesh..
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > tglx
