Re: [RFC v3 02/12] drivers: Add hardware timestamp engine (HTE)

Dipen Patel
2021-12-08T01:57:34Z

On 12/7/21 5:21 PM, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 04:36:35PM -0800, Dipen Patel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * enum hte_return- HTE subsystem return values used during callback.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @HTE_CB_HANDLED: The consumer handled the data successfully.
>>>> + * @HTE_RUN_THREADED_CB: The consumer needs further processing, in that case HTE
>>>> + * subsystem will invoke kernel thread and call secondary callback provided by
>>>> + * the consumer during devm_of_hte_request_ts and hte_req_ts_by_dt_node call.
>>>> + * @HTE_CB_TS_DROPPED: The client returns when it can not store ts data.
>>>> + * @HTE_CB_ERROR: The client returns error if anything goes wrong.
>>>> + */
>>>> +enum hte_return {
>>>> + HTE_CB_HANDLED,
>>>> + HTE_RUN_THREADED_CB,
>>>> + HTE_CB_TS_DROPPED,
>>>> + HTE_CB_ERROR,
>>>> +};
>>>> +typedef enum hte_return hte_return_t;
>>>> +
>>> Wrt HTE_CB_TS_DROPPED, why is the client dropping data any of hte's
>>> business? It is also confusing in that I would expect the dropped_ts
>>> gauge, that you increment when this code is returned, to indicate the
>>> events dropped by the hardware, not the client. But then you have no
>>> indication of events dropped by hardware at all, though you could
>>> determine that from gaps in the sequence numbers.
>>> Anyway, the client can do the math in both cases if they care to, so not
>>> sure what its purpose is here.
>> It is used for statistical purpose and hte being subsytem it can provide
>>
>> standard interface in debugfs (so that clients do not have to) to anyone interested.
>>
>> The dropped_ts could represent total dropped ts by both hardware and
>>
>> client. I can add debugfs interface to break it down further if it helps in statistics.
>>
> Updating stats is not what the return code here is for.
>
> And what if the client discards the event AFTER returning from the
> handler, say in the threaded cb?
>
> If you want stats fedback then provide a function for the client to call
> to update stats, rather than piggy-backing it on the callback return.
I agree, will work that in v4.
> I'm unconvinced that stats are a worthwhile addition, and you certainly
> don't need to bake it into your core api.

Wouldn't it help in debugging i.e. quickly check using this interface

if there are drops for given application setup?

>
> Cheers,
> Kent.