[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <035701db60c9$4a2c1ea0$de845be0$@trustnetic.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 13:59:18 +0800
From: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>
To: "'Keller, Jacob E'" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"'Richard Cochran'" <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
<davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>,
<kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>,
<linux@...linux.org.uk>,
<horms@...nel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
<mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: wangxun: Implement do_aux_work of ptp_clock_info
> > > +static int wx_ptp_feature_enable(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp,
> > > + struct ptp_clock_request *rq, int on)
> > > +{
> > > + struct wx *wx = container_of(ptp, struct wx, ptp_caps);
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > > + * When PPS is enabled, unmask the interrupt for the ClockOut
> > > + * feature, so that the interrupt handler can send the PPS
> > > + * event when the clock SDP triggers. Clear mask when PPS is
> > > + * disabled
> > > + */
> > > + if (rq->type != PTP_CLK_REQ_PPS || !wx->ptp_setup_sdp)
> > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > NAK.
> >
> > The logic that you added in patch #4 is a periodic output signal, so
> > your driver will support PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT and not PTP_CLK_REQ_PPS.
> >
> > Please change the driver to use that instead.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard
>
> This is a common misconception because the industry lingo uses PPS to mean
> periodic output. I wonder if there's a place we can put an obvious warning
> about checking if you meant PEROUT... I've had this issue pop up with
> colleagues many times.
Does a periodic output signal mean that a signal is output every second,
whenever the start time is? But I want to implement that a signal is
output when an integer number of seconds for the clock time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists