[Y2038] [PATCH v4 06/10] cec: add HDMI CEC framework: y2038 question
hverkuil at xs4all.nl
Wed May 6 08:58:01 PDT 2015
On 05/04/2015 12:14 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 04 May 2015 09:42:36 Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Ping! (Added Arnd to the CC list)
> Hi Hans,
> sorry I missed this the first time
>> On 04/27/2015 09:40 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> Added the y2038 mailinglist since I would like to get their input for
>>> this API.
>>> Y2038 experts, can you take a look at my comment in the code below?
>> Arnd, I just saw your patch series adding struct __kernel_timespec to
>> uapi/linux/time.h. I get the feeling that it might take a few kernel
>> cycles before we have a timespec64 available in userspace. Based on that
>> I think this CEC API should drop the timestamps for now and wait until
>> timespec64 becomes available before adding it.
>> The timestamps are a nice-to-have, but not critical. So adding it later
>> shouldn't be a problem. What is your opinion?
> It will take a little while for the patches to make it in, I would guess
> 4.3 at the earliest. Using your own struct works just as well and would
> be less ambiguous.
> However, for timestamps, I would recommend not using timespec anyway.
> Instead, just use a single 64-bit nanosecond value from ktime_get_ns()
> (or ktime_get_boot_ns() if you need a time that keeps ticking across
> suspend). This is more efficient to get and simpler to use as long
> as you don't need to convert from nanosecond to timespec.
Possibly stupid follow-up question:
is ktime_get_ns() just a different representation as ktime_get_ts64()?
Or is there some offset between the two? They seem to be identical based
on a quick test, but I'd like to be certain that that's always the case.
Users need to be able to relate this timestamp to a struct timespec as
returned by V4L2 (and others).
More information about the dri-devel