Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2023 12:54:00 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Siarhei Vishniakou <svv@google.com>
Cc:     Biswarup Pal <biswarupp@google.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Call input_set_timestamp for events injected using uinput
Message-ID: <ZEwkWAtpwdUiqHb1@google.com>
References: <20230427000152.1407471-1-biswarupp@google.com>
 <CAKF84v2Rw8xQv=m+ciL+n_uXhyAZWFmhYpgA63Q=DnVh5sbOsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZEwkC7BiUpq7kbjc@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZEwkC7BiUpq7kbjc@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:52:43PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:38:36AM -0700, Siarhei Vishniakou wrote:
> > Thanks Biswarup!
> 
> Please avoid top posting.
> 
> > 
> > Just to add a bit of context: we were concerned with  breaking the
> > existing uinput usages where the caller might be setting an incorrect
> > value (since previously, that had no effect).
> > So the 10 second guard was added to fall back to the default behaviour
> > for those devices.
> 
> What is the benefit of sending this in uinput? It is not much close
> to the exact time the hardware generated the event than the timestamp
> generated in the input core, so I do not see why it is needed in uinput.

Ah, sorry, my apologies, I mis-parsed the code.

-- 
Dmitry