On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:52:47AM +0200, Paul Chavent wrote: > > I would also prefer the separate ioctl. As you said it, it's a bit > annoying to switch from blocking mode to non blocking mode if we > need both mode. But i was not sure about the preferences of the > maintainer : (i) change the api, or (ii) change the behavior with a > widely supported interface (O_NONBLOCK).
As already stated the PPS RFC doesn't use ioctls to manage PPS data so we can modify ioctls according our needs! In fact we can modify the LinuxPPS wrapper functions to still remain RFC compliant. :) > I'm certainly not the best person to make the final decision, but i > would like to help you if you need me (write doc, or change this > patch). In this scenario I think we can do as Andrew suggests modifying LinuxPPS docs accordingly... maybe we can add a new file into linux/Documentation/pps directory describing Linux PPS ioctls and how they interact with PPS RFC functions. Andrew, could this be an acceptable solution? Ciao, Rodolfo -- GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giome...@enneenne.com Linux Device Driver giome...@linux.it Embedded Systems phone: +39 349 2432127 UNIX programming skype: rodolfo.giometti Freelance ICT Italia - Consulente ICT Italia - www.consulenti-ict.it -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
