From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikita Edward Baruzdin Subject: CAN documentation Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:47:37 +0400 Message-ID: <1406296057.9487.1.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:54099 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752279AbaGYNrn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:47:43 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e16so3120994lan.11 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Oliver Hartkopp Cc: "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" Hello, guys, I'm looking at linux-can/can-modules tree: 2011-06-26 12:47 Oliver Hartkopp minor doc changes ... tbc 2011-06-10 19:08 Oliver Hartkopp documentation: rework chapter numbering & references ... 2010-11-22 19:41 Oliver Hartkopp Added new documentation layout contributed by Daniele Venzano. Why are all these changes still not in the kernel? I'm not sure if this is a good idea to split the documentation, but the patches introduce some new helpful information. Hence a little follow-up question: > The timestamp on Linux has a resolution of one microsecond and it is > set automatically at the reception of a CAN frame. It seems to me this is not entirely true as the kernel has a support for SO_TIMESTAMPNS socket option for quite a long time. Could you really use that option with CAN? Does it make sense to use nanosecond timestamps? I'm also a bit confused whether these are only the software timestamps or you can somehow get them from a controller too.