Should the HAVE_KERNEL_PLL conditional be abolished?
hmurray at megapathdsl.net
Sun Dec 3 21:14:33 UTC 2017
esr at thyrsus.com said:
> I'm aware. There's a separate HAVE_KERNEL_PPS that conditionalizes the code
> for the second case.
I can't find any references to HAVE_KERNEL_PPS
I assume you mean HAVE_PPSAPI which is only referenced by refclocks
I screwed up. There are actually 3 things tangled up here.
First: capture pulse timing info.
Second: adjust "drift" on system clock
Third: in kernel PLL to adjust drift from PPS pulses
You can't implement the PLL unless you have a drift to adjust and a way to
capture timing info from PPS pulses.
A lot of what HAVE_KERNEL_PLL was doing was related to the second rather than
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
More information about the devel