Apologies, forgot to make sure it was plain text. On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Michael Wright <michaelwr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> We already have MSC_TIMESTAMP (which is in usec), do you really need >> nsec resolution? > > We don't actually need nsec resolution, usec resolution would be sufficient. > > >> Why do you need this special handling? Can you simply have MSC_TIMESTAMP >> to be delivered as part of the event packet and use it instead of the >> event timestamp if userspace chooses to do so? > > We need stronger guarantees than MSC_TIMESTAMP gives us. Much of > our system relies on the fact that timestamps produced by evdev are based on > the systems monotonic clock, whereas MSC_TIMESTAMP provides no such > guarantee. > As for whether it's a MSC or SYN event, I don't think we really have > preference. > > Thanks, > > Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
