On Tuesday 15 September 2015 18:32:36 Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > - ktime_get_ts(×tamp); > > + ktime_get_ts64(×tamp); > > + vts.tv_sec = timestamp.tv_sec; > > + vts.tv_nsec = timestamp.tv_nsec; > > I prefer to take this opportunity to create a v4l2_get_timespec helper > function, just like v4l2_get_timeval. Ok, good idea. I'll do that once we have agreed on the ABI. > > @@ -2088,7 +2094,7 @@ struct v4l2_event { > > } u; > > __u32 pending; > > __u32 sequence; > > - struct timespec timestamp; > > + struct v4l2_timespec timestamp; > > __u32 id; > > __u32 reserved[8]; > > }; > > > > I think I am OK with this. This timestamp is used much more rarely and I do > not expect this ABI change to cause any problems in userspace. I'd still wait the outcome of the v4l2_timeval discussion though. It may be useful for consistency to pick the same approach for both structures. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html