Should the HAVE_KERNEL_PLL conditional be abolished?

Hal Murray hmurray at
Sun Dec 3 21:14:33 UTC 2017

esr at 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 
the third.

These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

More information about the devel mailing list